Not long ago, the Supreme People's Court released 5 typical cases of punishing crimes of infringing on citizens' personal information and related crimes in accordance with the law. These cases clearly demonstrate the full chain crackdown strategy of the people's court on crimes that infringe on citizens' personal information and related crimes, and also provide a demonstration reference for the governance of similar crimes. In the current booming digital economy, personal information has become an important resource that combines social and economic value. This has led to the frequent occurrence of sensitive personal information being leaked, stolen, and sold, as well as related crimes such as precision fraud and extortion. A black and gray industry chain surrounding citizens' personal information has already formed, seriously endangering citizens' personal and property safety and social public order. It is of practical necessity to crack down on and control such crimes. The typical case released this time provides experience and reference for the entire chain to combat such crimes. The firmness of the personal information security defense line depends not only on the height of technical protection barriers, but also on the professional ethics of the "people" who master the data. In practice, government administrative departments and public service sectors such as finance, telecommunications, transportation, and healthcare have collected and stored a large amount of personal information of citizens, which provides convenience for improving the quality and efficiency of administrative management and public services. However, some organizations and individuals violate professional ethics and confidentiality obligations by illegally obtaining relevant information and selling it for profit through their positions or services. The personal information stored on these government and enterprise platforms involves a large group base, sensitive content, and strong directionality. Once leaked, it usually has greater social harm. Therefore, intentional disclosure of such information should be punished severely. For example, in the cases of "Bo Software Co., Ltd., He et al. infringing on citizens' personal information" and "Chen et al. infringing on citizens' personal information" released this time, the defendants are all industry insiders who engage in self theft and have been severely punished according to law. These two cases aim to warn relevant industry departments to strengthen internal management and professional ethics education, and to invest more energy in maintaining the security of information data on government and enterprise platforms, tightening the "valve" of personal information security protection from the source. Illegal information trading is the intermediate link between the source of information leakage and downstream related crimes, and it is also the core of the operation of the black and gray industry chain. Cutting off illegal channels for information circulation is crucial for dismantling the entire criminal ecosystem. In the case of Huang and others infringing on citizens' personal information, the criminal gang illegally obtained educational information and sold it through precise division of labor and technical disguise. This behavior not only directly violates the personal information security of citizens, but also provides conditions for downstream related crimes such as fraud and extortion. The significance of the People's Court's precise crackdown on illegal personal information transactions in accordance with the law is to cut off the black and gray industry chain and effectively compress the overall survival space of the black and gray industry. The fundamental purpose of protecting citizens' personal information is to ensure the safety of their personal, property, and privacy, as well as to prevent interference with their normal work and life. If the criminal justice crackdown cannot extend to the abuse of information at the terminal, the protection effect will be greatly reduced. The key to effectively cracking down on information abuse such as "unboxing" online violence lies in accurately identifying the malicious initiators, organizers, and instigators of online violence, in order to solve the practical dilemma of "law not punishing the public". In the case of Lin and Wang infringing on citizens' personal information and illegally using information networks, the defendant set up a "social work database" website and set up a group to carry out "unboxing", which is a typical malicious organizer. The people's court punished the two for the crimes of illegal use of information networks and infringing on citizens' personal information in accordance with the law, reflecting the judicial authorities' "zero tolerance" attitude towards the behavior of "unboxing and hanging people". At the same time, severe punishment for information abuse also requires attention to the comprehensiveness of criminal law evaluation. In practice, it is not uncommon for individuals to engage in both illegal acquisition of citizens' personal information and related criminal activities. In this regard, the principle of "choosing one serious crime for punishment" should not be simply applied just because there is a "means end" relationship between the two. Instead, it should be analyzed based on specific circumstances, and in some cases, the two behaviors should be evaluated separately and punished for multiple crimes. The above-mentioned cases, as well as the "Liang and Wang fraud and infringement of citizens' personal information cases" that use vaccine information to commit fraud crimes, all reflect the judicial authorities' position of punishing multiple crimes in accordance with the law, which is conducive to achieving a comprehensive evaluation of multiple different criminal behaviors of the perpetrators. From blocking loopholes at the source, to cutting off distribution channels, and then severely punishing abuse at the end, these typical cases systematically demonstrate the strategies and responsibilities of judicial organs in implementing the responsibility of protecting citizens' personal information security. This is not only a powerful deterrent to criminals, but also a renewed emphasis on the personal information protection obligations of various data processing entities. In the future, we hope that the judicial authorities will continue to focus on prominent issues strongly reflected by the people, continuously enhance judicial capabilities, improve the entire chain protection mechanism, and effectively safeguard citizens' personal information security through more systematic, precise, and powerful judicial practices, providing a more solid legal guarantee for the development of the digital economy. (Looking into the New Era) (Author Wei Qinquan, affiliation: School of Criminal Law, East China University of Political Science and Law)