The Netherlands has ( from what I have been told, I don't read the Dutch* language fluently at all ) what is probably the strictest version/ interpretation of "the EU cookie law"..which does indeed require that the webmaster notify all visitors of 3rd party cookies ( if they are placed by the 3rd party sites ) however it ( "the EU cookie law" ) does not make the webmaster "responsible" for the 3rd party cookies, because the webmaster cannot know what ( if any ) cookies are placed by 3rd parties, nor if when 3rd parties place cookies, if they place the same cookies to each visitor from the EU, or if they "tailor" the cookies according to which EU country the visitor is in at the time of their visit..
the webmaster also cannot know what the 3rd party does with the data that they receive when they read a cookie that they have placed on the visitor machine..the webmaster cannot read the cookie(s)..in fact they do not have any way of knowing if a 3rd party actually places a cookie or cookies or not, nor of what type they may be, nor of what duration..
The emphasis has always been on what we refer to as 3rd party cookies, this is why session cookies, and those required to hold data for shopping carts etc were not included in the "EU webmaster must notify and obtain consent from the visitor" parts of the directive..
The EU ( who both Google and facebook "advised"/lobbied/"persuaded" on the matter prior to the issuing of the directive..some might say "advised" with the aim of totally obfuscating the issues and the responsibilities, and technical abilities and possibilities of the 1st ( webmasters ) and 3rd ( Google and facebook ) parties in the minds of the woefully ignorant EU officials and politicians..those EU officials who did understand some of the issues, unfortunately for us ( but fortunately for Google and facebook ) raised no objections to the fact that the EU directive did not put the onus to notify and obtain permission squarely upon the 3rd party entities, and left it vague..which was exactly what Google and facebook wanted..Although the texts, at least in English and French do say "applies to websites that use and store" cookies..We all know ( I hope ) that, websites don't store cookies on the site, scripts on them may read cookies that they have set on visitor machines, but they don't store them on the website..and if the site didn't "set" the cookies, it cannot "use" them, because, it cannot "read" them..But of course Google and facebook know this, as we do, they also know that the concern was never with what webmasters do with cookies, only with what Google and facebook et al do with the tracking and profiling of EU citizens when they set cookies via the calls to their systems from webmasters pages..Almunia pretty much wrote what Eric told him to, and the EU officials signed off on it..
Now Google are expecting major incoming flack ( on a number of counts , including the privacy and tracking ones ) from Vestager ( who, like virtually all women will not have things in her search history that might leave her open to "persuasion" )..so ..They are "blame shifting", "responsibility shifting", in the hope that those amongst the EU officials who do not understand the technicalities might "persuade" Vestager to "ease off on them directly over the privacy thing"..and some "uproar" and EU blaming from webmasters ( who, if they run adsense, wherever they might be based, will blame anyone but the hand of the plex that distributes the webmaster welfare )..It might work, Vestager might be persuaded by others in EU officialdom that the privacy/tracking thing is too complex to implement, and not to insist that Google , facebook et al stop or at least severely curtail it..
I personally hope that she stands her ground..
Despite the fact that it was never in the spirit of the EU directive that webmasters would have to take responsibilty for 3rd party cookies placed by Google or facebook et al ( what about "social buttons", that track visitors when placed on webpages ? ), the fact that Google are now "blame shifting" and "responsibility shifting" the notification and acceptance issues onto webmasters who run adsense ( at pain of losing their accounts if the webmasters do not do what Google says )..it is really not much inconvenience, nor effort, to add such notifications to any of our sites or pages..Anyone could have written the required scripts in the time it has taken them to read this thread..
As to customers ( visitors) being "put off" by the presence of such "notifications"..Those of us who live within the EU, or who run sites with EU traffic, or who run EU based sites, or even who merely surf EU sites, already know that both we , and our customers/visitors just click "Ok" and continue on sites that "notify"..we have been doing so since a couple of years or so already..No "fall off in traffic"..No "huge" ( or even insignificantly small ) numbers of visitors who "back out" or "bounce" because of such notifications..Thoe of us who are EU based ( and who already implemented such things ) know this, our logs are the proof..
We should not have to do this,( but that would require Google to not be sneaky and misleading, and maybe even to stop tracking, aint gonna happen while Eric is in charge ) but it isn't going to hurt our sites..Those of us in the EU who have already been doing it on our sites whether adsense or ecom, know this..
edited..Some types of analytics are "exempt"..Ganalytics is not ( and thus sites which use it are not "exempt" )..see the site I linked to in my first post in this thread for explanation as to the types of Cookies that Ganalytics sets..
*Is it even called the Dutch language, or is it Flemish ? In France it is referred to as "Flamand"