That's cool. Pitt, Duquense? I graduated from Pitt Law a number of years ago. Good luck.

FYI, the requirement for a warrant has always and still is probable cause. Simply encrypting is not enough for probable cause. That was the case 10 years ago and that is still the case today, even with the rule change. The only thing changing with the rule you just linked is where there is probable cause of a crime being committed, a law enforcement agency can obtain a warrant from any jurisdiction, since it is near impossible to track down the source of a encrypted transmission.

However, before this rule and with this rule, simply using TOR does not give rise to probable cause. There has to be other evidence of a crime being committed. The rule is being proposed because when encrypted media is obtained by law enforcement, there is uncertainty on which judge to take it to because they can't track down the source of the transmission.

Above subsection A, it says "where a crime may have been committed." To a non-lawyer, that could be interpreted literally as anything and anywhere. But legally, that means under the federal rules, where there is specific evidence that a crime is more likely than not being committed.

To illustrate, if I tell a police officer I use TOR, he does not have probable cause to get a warrant just from that. On the other hand, if a number of pieces of evidence and leads come to the police that I am engaged in trading child porn or something, and then the police investigate and then they find encrypted media, then they might have grounds for probable cause, that is, an argument can be made that is more likely than not that a crime is being committed on my computer.