My goodness, you're so simple!
So you're saying that because a few people engage in criminal activities, none of the rest of us should have any rights?
The government should have the right to tap payphones at will because drug dealers and prostitutes use them to a statistically insignificant degree? Hey, they also drink water; should the government have the power to put radioactive tracers in the water supply to track the movements of drug dealers and prostitutes? They drive; should the police have the power to set up roadblocks at every major intersection and search our cars at random looking for drugs or cases of condoms?
The whole reason for that provision was to scare terrorists and criminals away from library computers.
And in the process scare away the vast majority of users with legitimate reasons for using those computers.
Who's seriously looking for privacy at a public library?! The librarians and the library know what you checked out and what aisles you're perusing. That's not private at all! If one wanted privacy one would buy a book through Alibris, Abe Books, Amazon or ebay.
What's really bizarre about that statement is that the government can more easily get hold of your purchase records and find out what you're reading that way. I trust librarians to protect my privacy far more than I trust businesses, which have a proven track record of peddling my private information for profit whenever they can. A business will roll over and comply with even a dubious subpoena, or the simpler administrative request made possible by "Patriot", rather than incur the financial cost of resistance. They see no profit in protecting my privacy, while librarians are not motivated by profit and have demonstrated a willingness to stand on principle. To paraphrase Marx, capitalists will happily sell you the rope to hang us all.
If those are the reasons to support the "Patriot" Act, then I'm more determined than ever to resist it.