Which basically says that the constitution doesn't have to spell out every right people have, for them to have it. Privacy is considered a right by most of the public, and so it is a right. I'm not a lawyer, but based on that amendment, I'd be inclined to say that a very convincing argument could be made that any law, or judge ruling, that violates privacy is unconstitutional.
Ah, so in that case, the "right to" anything could just be made up and given to the people.
Yes, there is a general "right to privacy" - in criminal cases, as I have already explained. But the "right of privacy" as most people think of it is nonexistant, as shown by court precedent. It has been ruled constitutional for employers to force employees to wear tracking badges; and for employers to read their employees' emails, even non-job related ones; and for employers/parents to read diary entries/other private journal-writings of employees/kids; and many other cases that I could list. There is no social "right to privacy." The right to privacy only relates in criminal cases to the defendent's/witnesses' "expectation of privacy," which relates to the necessity of a warrant as shown in the 4th amendment - basically, only applies to police and other federal agents which require a warrant.

Just like the "seperation of church and state" - another myth. The so-called "seperation" is only somewhat similar to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which states that the government can pass no laws that "establishes or excludes" religion - not the same thing by any standards.