Kevin -- the word "privacy" does not appear in the Constitution. However, since the question came up in the 1800's, judges have been consistently upholding privacy as the de facto result of several explicitly declared rights, such as due process and the forbiding of unreasonable searches and seizures, among others.

We're under common law, just like Britain, so the precedent of those court decisions carries as much if not more weight than the Constitution itself. It doesn't have to be literally inthe Constitution to be a "constitutional" right.

There are, of course, those who will insist we should follow a literal interpretation of the Constitution, but in general I don't think they realize what a revolutionary change would have to happen to our entire legal system before this would become legal. In fact, it could be argued that we'd have to write the whole Constitution -- since the courts are charged with interpretting the law, to remove the responsibility of interpretation and force a judgement based on the literal words of the legislature would completely upend the 3-cornered system of checks and balances that have kept us out of a lot of trouble in the past.

I dunno, most of Eutope gets along fine with literal interpretation, but considering the insults the same advocates of literal interpretation toss at Europe, I'm not sure what they really want.