No worries about the misunderstandings in my tone.

There's a number of factors to break down to analyze the situation in your post.

First off, regardless of all of that, I'd argue that if we're in the realm of parallel construction, we're past the point of getting a warrant just because someone uses TOR. I still maintain and think there's plenty to support that we are not at a point where the FBI can go get a warrant just by claiming the person uses TOR.

The thermal camera case you cited is Kyllo v. United States and supports my position. The police did in fact use a thermal camera from public property to look into the heat from the grower's home. They then used the data from that camera to go to a judge to ask for a warrant to search.

The case went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court agreed with Kyllo that a warrant was needed at the very start to use the thermal camera. That is, using a thermal camera constitutes a "search" under the 4th Amendment and can only be done with a warrant obtained beforehand. That means the search was unreasonable and unconstitutional. Even though I wasn't a fan of Scalia, this is a case he spearheaded into protecting privacy and he was an advocate for the 4th Amendment.

And it's not surprising he ruled that way. For hundreds of years, the idea of privacy in your home is an important concept to American law. We're now pushing that idea into what privacy there is for a phone and computer (recently, the Supreme Court before Scalia passed upheld unanimously in 2014 that a warrant is needed to search a cell-phone.

they just say some bullshit like we suspect him of silk road drug deals

In order for a judge to sign off on the warrant, they have to show what evidence or specific information they have that led them to that suspicion.

The issue and what the rule is trying to address is that, let's say you mail something illegal from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia. The police intercept it based on a lead, but they obviously can't go to a judge in Alaska and ask for a warrant top open it. Replace letter with encrypted digital transmission and replace Pittsburgh to Phildalephia with "on the internet." There's been too much uncertainty in what judge to take that to for a warrant, so they're proposing a rule that in such a situation, any jurisdiction would be applicable.

I'm personally not a fan of the proposed rule. I use TOR and VPNs and I think it could be better written. But even as a proponent for the right to encrypt, I still don't believe that anything in that rule would allow law enforcement to get a warrant just because TOR is present. There has to be other information or evidence to support the need for the warrant.