And giving a preview makes the newsletter sound like something you're offering to the customer, not something undesirable you're trying to inflict on the customer.

What I really want to see in newsletter sign up forms is how often and what type of messages I will receive.

Having the newsletter unchecked by default is effectively the same as not having a newsletter.

Personally, I think "don't have a newsletter" is a great idea (it reduces UI cutter too), but people want to send newsletters and the only way to make sending a newsletter worth the time spent to prepare it is by making it opt-out not opt-in.

edit: I'm not saying I support this, just that a newsletter is never done in the users' interest but as an advertizement. It might make for good UX for the user for it to be unchecked, but thats kind of the point, the entire concept of the newsletter relies on bad UX to gain subscribers.

I've signed up for a few newsletters on purpose before, if (a) the product and/or content was compelling enough, and (b) the checkbox told me unambiguously what the newsletter would contain, and most importantly, how often it is sent (monthly is ideal).

Assuming your newsletter might be something your users would actually want to read (crazy, I know), the newsletter preview link is a fantastic idea.

Opt-out newsletters are illegal in the EU, as per EU Directive 2002/58/EC.

Article 13.5 means that only article 13.2 applies to non-natural persons (ie businesses, very weird) and hence "provided that customers clearly and distinctly are given the opportunity to object, free of charge" to receipt of messages then it appears a company can spam you if you first gave them contact info in some way.

Indeed the Article only says they have to allow you to object, nothing about the company not sending you repeated emails when you do object.

Looks badly drafted and without teeth IMO.

--- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Privacy_and_Electr... http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:... - full current text

Directives don't really have teeth, per se. They don't take direct effect, but need to be passed into each member's country law separately.

AFAIK most made opt-out illegal, even if the directive didn't necessarily require it well.

Do you know of any quick reference to the individual laws created as a result of ratification of these articles?

It's still unethical IMHO.