Republicans have adopted multiple technology-related planks in their party platform (PDF), underscoring unprecedented support for Internet freedom and data protection, as well as protections from "unwarranted or unreasonable governmental intrusion through the use of aerial surveillance."

The GOP also vehemently argues against international regulation of the Internet, and lambasts the concept of the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rule. The party says the agency is "trying to micromanage telecom as if it were a railroad network." It also calls for the use of "offensive capabilities" in cybersecurity, presumably, à la Stuxnet and more recent malware that likely originated from classified American programs. Further, the party also calls for a prohibition on online gambling as well as a "vigorous enforcement" of "all forms of pornography and obscenity."

Four years ago, Republicans did not mention the word "data" at all in the 2008 party platform, and only used the word "Internet" in context of calling for more government transparency online. Back then, the party argued for a permanent ban on "Internet access taxes" as well as a halt to "all new cell phone taxes."

We all love Internet Freedom, right?

Specifically, under the header of "Protecting Internet Freedom," Republicans lavish the Internet with praise, saying that it has "unleashed innovation, enabled growth, and inspired freedom more rapidly and extensively than any other technological advance in human history. Its independence is its power." The definition of Internet freedom, of course, is not something that everyone agrees on—generally Democrats argue for net neutrality, while Republicans say it impedes business interests.

In the same section, the platform also essentially calls for a reining in on government surveillance power.

"We will ensure that personal data receives full constitutional protection from government overreach and that individuals retain the right to control the use of their data by third parties; the only way to safeguard or improve these systems is through the private sector," the platform states.

Advocacy groups like the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) have called for similar protection for the use of personal data, which currently is available, often warrantlessly, to law enforcement agents under the 1986-era Electronic Communications Privacy Act. EPIC and others have called for reforms to this law, and said that Congress needs to step in where private industry has failed.

"We believe that the private sector approach to protect personal data has failed," said Amie Stepanovich, an associate litigation counsel at EPIC.

Ambiguities abound

However, other groups don’t see it that way, and are a bit disappointed at the language outlined in the platform.

"In context, I think it's pretty clear the ‘right of control’ they're talking about is a right against government access," wrote Berin Szoka, the president of tech policy think tank TechFreedom, in an e-mail sent to Ars.

"But it's bound to be misinterpreted by privacy regulatory advocates as a general right to control information held by third parties about us—which is essentially the approach of groups like EPIC. In particular, what exactly does the term ‘their data’ mean, anyway? The authors probably meant data that users upload or create to services—e.g., tweets, e-mails, Google Docs. But this term will likely be interpreted to mean much more than that: data merely about them—which is more properly referred to as ‘personally identifiable information.’ At best, this is poor draftsmanship."

Other legal scholars concur, saying this plank leaves more questions than answers.

"Additionally, while the right for individuals to control the use of their data by third parties could be an important part of protecting online privacy, it’s unclear exactly what this statement in the platform is referring to," wrote Woodrow Hartzog, a professor of law at the Cumberland School of Law at Samford University, in an e-mail to Ars.

"Individuals do not own their personal information in the traditional sense. The First Amendment also protects against many attempts to restrict the publication of personal information. Instead, a loose patchwork of laws, regulations, and contracts provide limited rights to control one’s personal information in the United States. These rights certainly protect individuals in some contexts but often leave them vulnerable to harm in many others."

Lee Tien, staff counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, concurred, saying that this section on data protection "has lots of implications."

"You can't tell what they mean by full constitutional protection given flux in current Fourth Amendment law on business records in third-party hands," he wrote in an e-mail to Ars.

Remember what we did to Megaupload?

Christopher Dodd, the former Democratic senator from Connecticut, and current head of the Motion Picture Association of America, released a statement on Wednesday, calling the GOP’s platform "a very smart balance."

In the statement, Dodd re-iterated his group’s call that there was an "importance of us doing more as a nation to protect our intellectual property from online theft while underscoring the critical importance of protecting Internet freedom."

In a section that specifically addresses intellectual property violations in China, the GOP's platform states: "Punitive measures will be imposed on foreign firms that misappropriate American technology and intellectual property."