Abstract: The Judicial practices such as the “Tiktok Case” indicate that personal information is not always in an absolute private or absolute public context. The “relative disclosure” of personal information in specific scenarios is a common occurrence. The Personal Information Protection Law explicitly identifies the handling of disclosed personal information as a legal ground for fair use. However, the term “disclosed” encompasses both absolute and relative forms of disclosure, necessitating further clarification. The protection of personal information, which is in the midst of the transition between the old and new order, still remains consistent with the core concept of privacy. Compliance with the privacy expectation of natural persons is the theoretical foundation and institutional logic for the reasonable use of self-disclosed personal information. The interpretation of absolute disclosure represents both a misinterpretation of the Personal Information Protection Law, and a lack of theoretical connection to the state’s duty for protection, which may exacerbate the rigid application of the “Informed Consent” rule. In order to prevent arbitrary expansion of the application that may erode individuals’ personal information rights, it is necessary to evaluate and limit the fair use of relatively public personal information through the “three-step examination” of lawful relative disclosure, application of the duty of notification, and delineation of the limit of processing.