> You implied that the FCC can't fine you if they can't prove that you were sending encrypted traffic...

Can you show where I implied that?

It sure doesn't seem to match my reading of the comment chain.

Your original reply to me saying the FCC gives out big fines:

>Which they can only do for unencrypted traffic, encrypted traffic by definition would not be examinable by the FCC for determining whether to assign fines.

If they can only fine unencrypted traffic, as you say in this comment, you posit that it is because they can't examine the contents of the encrypted transmission to know who to fine.

If you intended a different message, feel free to revise what you began our conversation with.

It appears you are confused by the wording? Or perhaps your own double negation?

> You implied that the FCC can't fine you if they can't prove that you were sending encrypted traffic...

The quoted comment clearly does not imply that, if anything the opposite.

You positively asserted that they can only fine unencrypted traffic. You positively asserted that by definition, encrypted traffic could not be decoded to assign fines. By the logic of your comment, the FCC must decode the encrypted broadcasts to assign fines, which is false. They don't care what the broadcast contained. It violated RF restrictions. It gets fined if detected.

If you believe your comment implies anything else, you're going to have to explain your argument in more words than "it clearly does not imply that" because if it clearly implied what you claim, we wouldn't be arguing about what it "actually" means.

> You positively asserted that they can only fine unencrypted traffic.

No? The FCC can implement a blanket fine on all encrypted traffic on ham radio bans, if authorized by congress, without doing any 'determining' at all.

It seems as if your reading your own opinions and thoughts into my comments.

That is categorically not what "Which they can only do for unencrypted traffic" means.

Says who?