I've just made a unique ID for you, it's XYZUser. This is unique to you, and I'm storing this on my computer indefinitely.
I was under the impression that individuals keeping notes for non-commercial purposes is not governed by the GDPR.
Bodil Lindquist v Åklagarkammaren (2003) Mrs. Lindquist (whose purposes were mostly charitable and religious) published on a private home page personal data about her colleagues, including telephone numbers and information about a coworker’s injured foot and medical leave. This case raised the question if a private home page accessible to only those who have the address is permitted under one of the exclusions (household activity). The European Court of Justice ruled that it is not.
https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-18/
> This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity and thus with no connection to a professional or commercial activity. 2Personal or household activities could include correspondence and the holding of addresses, or social networking and online activity undertaken within the context of such activities. 3However, this Regulation applies to controllers or processors which provide the means for processing personal data for such personal or household activities.
The case is the precedent for the GDPR recital. Both of you are correct.
Bodil Lindquist v Åklagarkammaren (2003) Mrs. Lindquist (whose purposes were mostly charitable and religious) published on a private home page personal data about her colleagues, including telephone numbers and information about a coworker’s injured foot and medical leave. This case raised the question if a private home page accessible to only those who have the address is permitted under one of the exclusions (household activity). The European Court of Justice ruled that it is not.
That's not a private note, and I'd be livid if somebody was posting my contact and medical details online. I see no problem with this ruling, nor do I see it as evidence contrary to the idea that one may keep private notes.
What got my goat, though, wasn't the mere, if silly, clarification that notes are only protected if they're private. It's the phrasing of the quote to suggest that somehow these notes should have been considered private because the publisher didn't intend on anyone reading them (despite publishing them such that they could).
In fact it sounds like a precis of the quote I provided, but I could also imagine the defendant's lawyer saying it in the more loaded way presented here.