If the AP story Ramesh linked to is accurate, it is a good deal if it actually does break the logjam on the Patriot Act.

The article describes the compromise as being on two points. The first is a no-brainer — agreeing to allow people who receive a national security letter (NSL) to consult a lawyer without having to tell the government about it. NSLs allow the FBI to seek information without having to go to the Justice Department or a court. The vast majority of recipients — mainly third party holders of business records — will cooperate without counsel (or, because they are larger businesses, already have lawyers in the compliance loop anyway). Since the FBI can issue NSLs without running them by anyone, it’s reasonable to assume that knowing the recipient may consult with a lawyer will make the Bureau more careful and less unnecessarily burdensome in seeking information. That is a plus for people legitimately concerned about privacy.

The library compromise is more irritating. According to the AP, libraries would be immune from requests for information unless they are “electronic service providers.” Assuming this means that infomation may still be sought from any library that makes Internet and email services available to patrons, the compromise is probably not that big a deal, since many (perhaps most) libraries today do provide those services, and a suspect’s Internet or email use is what is most likely to be of interest to investigators.

Still, it’s a silly place to draw the line. There is no Fourth Amendment interest implicated by library records of any kind; there is no reason to think the government abuses its authority to seek library records (leaving the Patriot Act aside, prosecutors have been able to get them by simple grand jury subpoena for decades); and it is easy to imagine many scenarios in which the fact that a terrorst suspect was in a library or checked out a particular book might be highly relevant to the ability of investigators to identify him, to locate him, to connect him to other suspects, or otherwise to get insight into what he is up to. It makes no sense to turn a library into a safe harbor or to say to investigators: you can look at his Internet use but what he took from the bookshelves is none of your business.

But even though this limitation is unnecessary, it is not important enough to fight over if giving in means getting the rest of the Patriot Act reauthorized. I’d swallow hard and take the deal.