Sign stealing is not illegal, and I do not believe I even implied that from the portion you objected to and quoted.
It's implied by anyone who argues competitive advantage. The complaints are that the Patriots stole the opposing team's signals.
I mean, am I wrong about that?
Look, I don't want to say you're being obtuse about this, but I honestly don't understand what the difficulty is. If a fan says the Patriots haven't won since Spygate, they are implying that the Patriots used some methods to tilt the game to their favor. Obviously, using a camera does not do that (if, say, someone were taking film of cheerleader behinds) but stealing signals can do that.
Videotaping in that location is illegal. That is what opponents seize on - the fact of a violation (the practice I referred to was videotaping from that location, not sign stealing).
Not once have I ever heard a fan complain that the Patriots were filming from the sidelines as opposed to say an enclosed luxury box. Never. They complain that the Patriots stole signals. Why would they complain about the camera? Who cares?
You can argue your position all day, but you lack specific facts germane to the investigation that only the actual participants in the practice are and were privy to. Unless you were on the coaching or support staff and can comment on the actual facts rather than facts as you believe them to be, you are simply an advocate and fan who can prove nothing definitively (I know, you believe you can do so - I appreciate your enthusiasm).
I have no idea what you're even talking about here. Are you talking about how the stolen signals were used? That's been discussed ad nauseam by people who did the same exact thing. People have described precisely how they are used, going so far as to say that about 10 seconds before the snap, the QB is told to watch for a certain coverage (albeit this happens not on the day of the game, but in a future game, assuming the opponent hasn't changed signals, or furthermore, it's done to keep the opponent on their toes).
You could not testify to your theory in court because your facts are likely hearsay or an opinion lacking adequate factual basis. Referencing 2003 may be a simple solution to you, but what scrutiny were the Pats under then? None. That means it is your opinion again, and that has value here but opponents will say there was simply a continuation of the practice from 2001 until 2007 when the Pats played under scrutiny. To opposing fans and players, that is the only time the Pats were allegedly clean. Stupid, but true.
Uh, the Patriots played Carolina in 2003. They hadn't played Carolina as recently in the two previous regular seasons, and the last time they played Carolina, it had a totally different coaching staff. So, this isn't hearsay. If the Patriots were stealing signals by filming from the sidelines, if that's what they were doing wrong, we know they didn't have film on Carolina in the 2003 Super Bowl. That's a fact. Unless they were given that film by another team, or unless they were filming from the stands. But, then it wouldn't be illegal, would it?
I'll end by saying it again: the Patriots have already won a Super Bowl without the benefits of stolen signals. Try to blow a whole through that one.
.
