Very vague definition of personal information of citizens Lawyers say Reporters learned that the beginning of this year, Jiangsu Police destroyed a number of Internet companies and so-called "research firm" including Nanjing Tyrone investigation. Such company by advertising in the media, the web-based QQ group operational collaboration across the country illegal investigation company, Get extramarital affairs, debt disputes of domicile, vehicles, hotel accommodations and mobile positioning information of the parties, the public security system who , the existence of such a company, and even lead to violence to collect debts, fraud and other downstream crime. The existence of these surveys in the end not close legal? After leaving the research firm, the reporter conducted an interview of the Jiang Su Zhiren lawyer firm cap lawyer. He believes that the current law, there are some fuzzy space. . Intuitively, there is no legal basis referred to any person suspected of a crime are likely to obtain personal information of citizens, but in the end whether it constitutes a crime depends on many factors. First of all, the personal information of citizens is a fuzzy, changes in the concept of the Criminal Law Amendment (g) is not clearly defined it, he said. Are citizens of the citizen's name, occupation, position, age, marital status, education, professional qualifications, work experience, home address, telephone numbers, credit card numbers, fingerprints, online login account, password and other information closely related. But whether these information are illegally obtaining the personal information of citizens "within the meaning of the" crime of citizen information much room for controversy. For example, the name, qualifications, and even marital status and other information in many cases is a well-known information, it is difficult to be identified as illegal access to the object of the crime of citizen information. The properties of some information may be dynamic, such as professional qualifications of the officials in the office should not be considered illegal access to civic information sins protection of "personal information", while the outgoing should be protected.