Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the need for judicial research on the criminal law protection of publicly disclosed personal information, highlighting the risks to individuals' social image and personal rights if such information is mishandled [1]. Group 1: Legal Framework and Reasoning - The interpretation by the "Two Highs" in 2017 established that the consent of the information subject is a crucial criterion for determining whether a crime has occurred in cases of personal information infringement [2]. - The concept of "reasonable handling" should be recognized as a legal justification for the crime of infringing on citizens' personal information, as it balances the right to self-determination with the need for information circulation [2][3]. - The legal order principle suggests that actions deemed legal under civil or administrative law should not be classified as criminal, thus supporting the notion of "reasonable handling" as a defense [2]. Group 2: Definition and Scope of "Reasonable Handling" - "Reasonable handling" lacks a clear and unified standard in judicial practice, necessitating a distinction between voluntarily disclosed and legally mandated disclosures [3]. - When reprocessing voluntarily disclosed information, the handling must align with the original purpose of disclosure, respecting the information subject's expectations [4]. - If the purpose of the original disclosure is unclear, the information handler must exercise caution and reasonableness in processing the publicly available personal information [4]. Group 3: Balancing Interests and Legal Implications - The handling of publicly disclosed personal information must not infringe upon the significant interests of the information subject, which includes their life, dignity, and property security [5]. - The criminal law's regulation of publicly disclosed personal information should adhere to the principle of criminal law restraint, balancing public interest with individual rights [6]. - If the handling of voluntarily disclosed information meets the criteria for "reasonable handling" and is not explicitly rejected by the information subject, it does not constitute a crime [6].

Group 1 - The core viewpoint is that the marketing landscape has significantly changed in the post-marketing era, affecting both corporate strategies and consumer behavior [1] Group 2 - The spread of false information has accelerated due to the rise of social media and short video platforms, leading to potential public panic and misguided consumer decisions [3] - Many brands exaggerate concepts to attract attention, which can mislead consumers and potentially violate legal regulations, posing risks to companies [5] - Trust in companies has declined as a result of increased false information and exaggerated claims, making it harder for marketing messages to gain consumer trust [7] Group 3 - Consumers are now more focused on their own understanding and judgment, seeking information from multiple sources before making purchasing decisions, which diminishes brand authority [9] - Companies need to adapt to these changes by enhancing information transparency and service quality to build market competitiveness through genuine reputation [9]