- 15 Apr 08, 18:33 GMT
I'll be blogging throughout the meeting with key impressions and writing a report on the meeting for Wednesday's news pages.
That's a wrap. News story up tomorrow morning.
Mr Hanff says: "Phorm has to be opt in. You can't take implied consent on a human right."
Mr Hanff argued that privacy is a human right.
He added: "I'm concerned about the potential future use of the technology and the potential for creep."
The final speaker is Alexander Hanff, someone who has campaigned against Phorm.
He says: "What Phorm is trying to do is to turn people into products; a global warehouse selling pieces of us to highest bidders."
Phorm's technical officer Mark Burgess takes to the stage.
He emphasises that Phorm does not "compromise the user experience".
After concerns raised that Phorm can cause some page requests bouncing back and forth between the destination website and the Phorm system, he says that happens in less than 1% of the browsing experience.
The mood of the meeting is very good. There are about 100 people here, in case you wondered.
Dr Clayton wraps up saying: "It has to be informed opt in. I don't think it improves the stability of the internet. I think it's downright illegal in the UK."
Dr Richard Clayton, who has said Phorm is potentially illegal, says Phorm is making the internet more dangerous and not safer.
He also says the system is counter intuitive because it uses a cookie to opt out, not opt in.
"Deleting cookies means you delete the cookie that opted you out and so you opt in. This is backwards and not helpful."
Mr Ertugrul concludes by tackling the issue of legality and whether Phorm breaches RIPA because it makes an ilegal interception of people's browsing.
He makes the point that the body which is questioning Phorms's legality with respect to RIPA is the same body which attacked RIPA when it was first being proposed by government.
Kent Ertugrul says Phorm can transform online advertising, helping everyone from blogs to newspapers because the ads are targeted to the user not to the content on the page.
"The internet today is two to three professionals - Microsoft/Yahoo/Google and 9,999,999 hobbyists. That is the internet today.
"Phorm makes all websites capable of making a living by publishing interesting content to consumers who get it for free.
"Even the smallest website can make money. That is a big deal."
Phorm CEO Kent Ertugrul takes to the stage.
"We're saying this is a revolution in privacy. And I hope to convince you of that.
"We cannot know who you are - it's impossible."
Simon Davies, of 80/20 Thinking, which carried out a privacy impact assessment on Phorm, introduces the session.
"This meeting cannot possible resolve the issue of legality. It's the elephant in the room.
"But unless there are senior legal counsel here to reflect we will end up with a bunfight.
"It's a crucial issue. But I don't want us to get bogged down in a legal quagmire that results in us having no outcome."
He added: "Hopefully at the end we can reach some sort of conclusion about how to move forward."
PR exercise or genuine attempt to engage with the public? Perhaps both?
Attendees are handed a document from Phorm upon entering the meeting which compares Phorm with major search engines.
It makes the point that Phorm does not store any personal data while search engines do.
It's a fair point. But it's not the point that critics have been making for some weeks now.
They question if it's legal. They question the ethics of having an ISP snooping on your browsing activity full stop.
PS: From 1800 UK time this evening (16 April), we'll be doing some essential maintenance to all of the BBC's blogs. As a result of this, you won't be able to leave any comments on our blog posts from that time until early morning on Thursday, 17 April.
There's more about this on the editors' blog from Giles Wilson.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites