It makes it clear that the Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of rights retained by the People. It invalidates the statement "I don't see right X listed in the constitution".
The constitution is a limit on the powers of government, not the other way around.
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a call from the united states to a foreign country. Additionally a wiretap is neither a "search" nor a "seizure". No property which belongs to a person on a phone is confiscated and the minute the conversation leaves the confines of a man's house or his handset, it is no longer protected by the fourth amendment.
It is a judicial fiction which claims that phone taps or listening in on phone conversations is a violation of the fourth amendment. Such a doctrine was not envisioned by the framers.
"It makes it clear that the Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of rights retained by the People. It invalidates the statement "I don't see right X listed in the constitution". "The constitution is a limit on the powers of government, not the other way around." If a person was to presume what you presume; that the ninth amendment was to include privacy, there would be no way for the government to enforce any laws. We would have anarchy, which was clearly not the founders intent. If the founding fathers intended anarchy, they would have written a document that restricted this nation from having any form of government.