Madagascar

Article 3 bars a judicial decision assessing human conduct from resting on automated profiling at all, and bars an administrative or private decision assessing human conduct from resting solely on automated profiling. Article 5 applies the law to any automated or manual processing of personal data carried out in whole or in part on Malagasy territory, excluding only purely personal or household activity and journalistic, literary, or artistic activity.

Article 14 requires that personal data be collected and processed fairly and lawfully for determined, explicit, and legitimate purposes, kept adequate and not excessive, kept accurate, and kept no longer than the purpose requires. Article 15 requires the controller to take precautions appropriate to the data's nature and the risks involved to preserve security against accidental or unlawful destruction, accidental loss, alteration, disclosure, or unauthorized access.

Article 17 requires the data subject's consent or one of five alternative lawful grounds: a legal obligation, safeguarding the data subject's life, a public-service mission, performance of a contract, or the controller's or recipient's legitimate interest, subject to the data subject's own rights and interests.

Article 18 prohibits processing sensitive data, defined to include racial origin, biometric data, genetic data, political opinions, religious or other convictions, trade union membership, and health or sex-life data, subject to listed derogations including the data subject's express consent.

Article 20 bars transferring personal data to a foreign state unless that state offers a similar level of protection, though the CMIL may authorize a transfer where the controller offers sufficient guarantees, and the law lists further exceptional grounds including the data subject's informed consent to the transfer. Articles 22, 23, and 25 give a data subject the right to object on legitimate grounds, the right to access their own data, and the right to have it rectified.

Articles 28 and 29 create the Commission Malagasy de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CMIL) as the independent authority enforcing the law, with regulatory and sanctioning power.

Article 3 defines fraudulent access as intentionally accessing all or part of an information system without a legitimate excuse or justification, or beyond one. Article 4 defines fraudulent continued presence in the same terms, for remaining connected to or continuing to use a system.

Article 6 punishes fraudulent access or continued presence alone with a fine of 100,000 to 10,000,000 Ariary; where the access or continued presence damaged, erased, altered, or suppressed data, or impeded or altered the system's functioning, the penalty rises to six months' to five years' imprisonment together with the same fine range.

Article 3's definition of fraudulent access nowhere requires infringing a security measure or other technical protection, so its trigger, an intentional access without a legitimate excuse or justification, reads broader on its face than a standard limited to defeating one. The National Assembly adopted the law on 19 June 2014; the presidential promulgation date and Journal Officiel publication date are not confirmed in the primary text located.

Article 6 extends copyright protection to authors of anthologies or compilations of diverse works or expressions of folklore, and to databases under the terms of article 7, without prejudice to the rights of the authors of the original works included.

Article 7 defines a database as a compilation of data or other information, or of extracts of works, or of entire works, in electronic or other form, and confines protection to the selection and arrangement of the materials rather than to the underlying data or works themselves; where the compilation is of works, the compilation and the constituent works are protected independently, and where it is a compilation of information, only the compilation itself is protected.

This is a copyright-style protection of the compiler's selection and arrangement of materials, not a right created independently of any originality in that selection or arrangement.

Article 44 permits using analyses and short quotations lawfully published in another work, without the author's authorization and without payment, on condition of naming the source and the author.

Article 46(1) separately permits reproducing and distributing by press, or broadcasting or cable-communicating to the public, an economic, political, or religious article published in a newspaper or periodical, or a broadcast work of the same character, in cases where the right to reproduce or so communicate it has not been expressly reserved, again on condition of naming the source and the author where the author's name appears there.

Article 115, in the book on related (neighbouring) rights, separately exempts press reviews from the rights it grants to performers, phonogram producers, and broadcasting organisations. The article 46 reproduction exception can be defeated by the rightsholder's express reservation of the reproduction or communication right.