Thanks for posting the link - upvoted. However, I'm interpreting it a little differently. Consent is not just required for tracking across sites according to point 50 of that document. Their example of something that would require consent is storage of language preferences. That has nothing to do with cross site tracking.
The bit in question: "For example, pursuant to the last sentence of this Article a data subject may not
benefit from information and the right to oppose the processing of his/her data if a cookie collects his
language preferences or his location (e.g. Belgium, China) as this kind of cookies could be presented as
having as objective the facilitation of the transmission of a communication"
I think this regards storing the users locale information in a cookie .. you wouldn't need to store this in a cookie if you can store it on your server which links the locale information via a session cookie.
I don't think that kind of difference matters in the eyes of those who created the directive. I believe if you store a cookie that is later used to recover locale information stored on your server, that would not exempt you from the consent and refusal provisions. But I could be wrong.
[Edit] In any event, I agree with you that the article blows this issue completely out of proportion.
> I don't think that kind of difference matters in the eyes of those who created the directive.
Note: what matters is the difference in the eyes of those who interpret the directive. In this sense, the actual verbiage (and not authorial intent) is paramount.
