Civil Code provides for the protection of personal information in the part of personality rights, but does not use the wording of “the right to personal information”. Therefore, whether personal information protection should be the legal benefit protection or the right protection is still in doubt, resulting in the uncertainty of legal interpretation. In the Weread case, the court adopted the view of the legal benefit protection, which presented many logical loopholes and jurisprudential flaws in the understanding of personal information, indicating that the clarification is necessary. Combined with the relevant contents of the Personal Information Protection Law and the structure of the personality rights part in Civil Code, the rights protection theory is clearly based on the legal norms, and the jurisprudential proof will further confirm the absolute right attribute of personal information: the identifiability can delineate the basic scope of personal information, making the object of the right relatively certain and the boundary of the right relatively clear; while on the premise that private information is classified as privacy to be protected by absolute right, the fact that non-private information cannot be protected by absolute right is hard to be proofed in terms of both legal basis and system coordination, and the content of the right to personal information is also reflected in the limited self-determination of personal information; the right to dominate and control personal information does not point to the complete domination and full control of personal information, but to the control of the use of specific types for personal information.