Re: (Potentially) Interesting Morals
Yes, the article does state that Sunblock is (normally) used just to gather data and works with advertisers and brokers. The article then goes on to say that the London police are using Sunblock to "zap & replace" ads. It does not say that the police are working with advertisers and brokers.
You are correct in that illegal sites would still get their revenue stream if the ads are simply being substituted. However (to the best of my limited knowledge), I believe that most web advertising has switched away from the old "blanket ads" that were simply displayed, and now mostly pays for click-through advertising. In the case of click-through ads being replaced, then this actually would, in the exact purpose of the program, eliminate the websites revenue source. (This is probably what you were trying to say.)
In any case, going somewhat back to my original question, how do the London police claim the legal authority to remove non-London-based advertising from non-London-based websites? Will this only affect people in London, or throughout the UK? I am not ranting here, I am not even from the UK, but I am genuinely curious as to the legal justification.