Not being aggressed upon is a right. A certain amount of privacy is written into the fabric of the universe and is impossible to take away, thankfully, because privacy is requisite to avoid being aggressed upon. The hiding of information is fundamental to the very possibility of property, and to the nature of reality as not being under the fiat thumb of any human or "collective" consciousness. Privacy is written into the rules that govern physics itself. It is not the fundamental of natural law, however. Nonaggression is.

Labor is required to build firearms. That doesn't mean I don't have a right to buy one, build one, or own one. I don't think anyone is saying one has a right to have some privacy preserving widget given to them free of charge. The US 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee that Glock give me a free gun, yet I still have a right to bear one. People generally mean they have a right to not have their privacy invaded by force without due process or be prevented from ensuring their own privacy (such as banning privacy preserving tools). In the case of privacy, the 4th amendment is a similar example of this right. Property rights in general exist in part to protect reasonable expectations of privacy. I've never heard anyone define privacy rights as the right to own someone else's labor. If they exist, I assume they are an extreme minority.

Healthcare is an example where I HAVE seen such an incorrect argument. I believe humans have the right to pursue healthcare in a free market, but not to force others to fund it. Governments violate this in many ways, on both sides of the issue.