The Identity Theft Penalty Enhancement Act (ITPEA) increases penalties for crimes that involve the unlawful use of another person’s identifying information. A subsection of the ITPEA—the aggravated identity theft provision—imposes a mandatory two-year sentencing enhancement on a defendant who “uses” a means of identification of another person during and in relation to a predicate felony. Currently, federal circuit courts disagree about whether the term “uses” in the statute is ambiguous and whether the rule of lenity should consequently apply to narrow its reach. On the one hand, courts that have held the statute to be ambiguous apply the rule of lenity to hold that a defendant qualifies for the enhancement only if the defendant has directly impersonated another person. On the other hand, courts that have held the statute to be unambiguous reason that the plain text of the statute demands that the defendant need only generally misuse another’s information in the facilitation of fraud.

This Comment argues that the rule of lenity is improper in the context of the aggravated identity theft provision because a variety of interpretive tools are available and operative. For that reason, courts should apply the statute in accordance with its broad plain meaning by construing “uses” as requiring only general misuse of another person’s identifying information. This reading draws support from an analogous case in a comparable criminal context, interactions between interpretive canons, and legislative history found in the amendment notes to the ITPEA. This reading also provides practical benefits for courts assessing these issues in a contemporary technological landscape rife with digital political dissent and vigilante hacktivism.

身份盗窃处罚加强法 (ITPEA) 增加了对涉及非法使用他人身份信息的犯罪的处罚。ITPEA 的一个小节——加重身份盗窃条款——对在谓词重罪期间和与之相关的“使用”他人身份识别手段的被告施加强制性两年的刑期增强。目前，联邦巡回法院对法规中的“使用”一词是否模棱两可以及是否应因此适用宽大规则以缩小其范围存在分歧。一方面，认为法规模棱两可的法院适用宽大原则，认为只有在被告直接冒充他人的情况下，被告才有资格获得增强。另一方面，

该评论认为，在加重身份盗窃条款的背景下，宽大处理规则是不恰当的，因为有多种解释工具可供使用且可操作。出于这个原因，法院应根据其广泛的含义来适用该法规，将“使用”解释为只需要对他人的识别信息进行一般性滥用。这种解读得到了类似犯罪背景下的类似案例、解释性规范之间的相互作用以及 ITPEA 修正案说明中的立法历史的支持。这种解读还为法院在充斥着数字政治异议和自卫黑客行为主义的当代技术环境中评估这些问题提供了实际好处。