Peter Morgan, BT's director of communications, denied that BT had done anything illegal in conducting the 2006 and 2007 trials, and said BT had consulted the ICO after the trial.
"We absolutely, strenuously deny any suggestion we've done anything illegal or unethical," said Morgan. "We've taken extensive legal advice from both solicitors and barristers. The ICO has taken a close look at the trials, and it is satisfied they were not illegal. [Alexander Hanff] is wrong — plain and simple."
BT plans more trials of Phorm's technology and has, since April this year, been saying the trials will take place "in the coming weeks".
Morgan said the trial had not yet gone ahead, due to technical issues.
"We haven't firmed up the dates [for the upcoming trial] yet. It will be in the coming weeks," said Morgan. "We just want to make sure it's technically ready for trial, and make sure the people participating in the test are trialling a technically robust service."
The protest against Phorm's technology, which BT will rebrand 'Webwise', would have no impact on BT's upcoming trial, said Morgan.
"There is a tiny but vocal minority who believe there is an issue here," said Morgan. "It is a very small protest. When we've spoken to customers, they've been interested and see the benefits. We don't get the impression it's a significant shareholder issue."
When ZDNet.co.uk approached some of the shareholders at the AGM, they said they had been completely unaware of the trials until a question had been raised at the meeting by one of the protesters, who had managed to gain entrance.
"There was a question raised about that Phorm business," said one of the shareholders, who preferred to remain anonymous. "I didn't know anything about it before. BT should have let the shareholders know about the trial."
When asked about the legality of the trial, the shareholder said: "In this day and age, people should be asked before a trial like that."
When asked whether the protester's question had been fully answered by the chairman, another of the shareholders said he had been "brushed aside", while another said that BT was, perhaps, trying to avoid adverse publicity. "The question was addressed only so-so," said the shareholder. "Maybe BT doesn't want bad publicity because the shares are already at rock bottom."
BT's share price has fallen from a high of approximately £15 per share to under £2 per share in a decade, said the shareholder.
Talkback
While not wishing to comment on the specifics, it's sad that we now live in a world when the leaders of industry and government play so loose with truth, honesty, integrity and moral values. What an example to the rest of society!
Phorm is so obviously despicable to any right thinking person and is only the thin edge of the wedge unless we can stop this creeping disease.
Similarly, BT's trials (and 'fibs' when queried about unexplained activity) are also so obviously illegal, despite all the statements to the contrary, not to mention a massive breach of trust with their customers.
As with all other undesirable Internet activities, I have to ask where are the duly constituted authorities (Police, Courts, CPA, etc.) and what are they doing?
As for Parliament, they seem to find it easier to harass the general population rather than deal with real issues. However, I believe they do not wish to oppose Phorm in principle for their own reason, i.e. government snooping using this or similar technology.