I remember back around 20 years ago someone on this radio station https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%BE... was expressing support of the idea of switching to the Latin alphabet as a natural step in the integration of the country in Europe/ new digital age/ or something along those lines. His conclusion seemed to be that "society wasn't mature enough".
The Monty hall problem is a very nice example of why reasoning with conditional probabilities is hard. If you have studied conditional probabilities and encounter the Monty Hall problem it is easy to think you are in the situation to apply your knowledge and reason like that:
I know that the prize is not behind door A (because the host showed me the goat there).
Given that the prize is not behind door A calculate the probability that it is behind door B.
Well that's obviously 1/2. Why? Just use conditional probabilities that's what they are for.
(The calculation is trivial: Event X="prize behind B", event Y="prize not behind A",
P(X)=1/3, P(Y)=2/3. P(X and Y)=1/3.
P(X|Y)=P(X and Y)/P(Y) = 1/2.)
Exactly why this argument is wrong is the subtle part. Of course the argument doesn't put to use part of the information given - which door I chose originally and what contract I had with the host, so this is normally enough to make one uncomfortable, but still we know that, e.g.
"In probability theory, conditional probability is a measure of the probability of an event occurring, given that another event (...) has already occurred."
(source: wikipedia)
Having thought about it I find that adding some more precision to the intuitive motivation of conditional probabilities might be helpful. I certainly think twice now before using conditional probabilities to model the real world, but realizing that I should has cost me quite a bit of head scratching.
I have always wondered how a site is allowed to offer you an opt-in for anything that doesn't fall under legitimate interest. It would be driven by an illegitimate interest by assumption.
When using a legitimate interest (opt-out) as a legal basis, the interest must be both legitimate AND outweigh the data subject's rights and freedoms. This requires a balancing test between the various factors to be performed first.
Similarly, you can't just legitimize anything with consent (opt-in) – the consent must be valid, and of course can't override more specific laws. You can't consent to something illegal.
So no, failing to use legitimate interest doesn't mean it's illegitimate or that consent could always be used. It could also mean that the balancing test failed, or that laws prescribe a different legal basis. E.g. the “cookie law”prescribes consent for non-necessary cookies and similar technologies.
It becomes clearer if you look at it in terms of core business. So yes, they can collect X and Y because that's their core business and directly related to the product.
When it's for marketing, telemetry or similar purposes, it's tangential data, which need not be illegal or immoral to be an "illegitimate" interest. It becomes more of a dark pattern when they present a selectable option for "legitimate interests" - at best malicious compliance. They might think it's legitimate because it makes them money?
Similarly in the vein of malicious compliance is offering a cookie consent banner. As far as I know, they only need to do that if they're tracking you or storing TMI/PII. Worse is, it works, too, because now everyone is complaining about the law and not the companies engaging in these dark patterns.
