I totally agree with the idea. However, the "has no connectivity" bothers me. It's OK for devices to have connectivity as part of their feature set. I'd be very unhappy if my iPad couldn't connect to the Internet at large. However, it requiring even occasional connection to some specific service in order to perform its functions is the red flag.
I see some suggesting "no connectivity" but that would just sound like a negative thing. Typically you list features, not things it doesn't have. Sure, if you pause to think about it, we (on HN) would all figure out the benefit. But many people might not pause nor figure it out.
Independent also doesn't sound exactly right, but perhaps it's just that nobody ever used it to describe this before and I'd need to get used to it.
Edit: "Dependency-free" is not as common a word and means the same thing. That might be a little better.
Unfortunately, "organic" today mostly means overpriced crap for eco-freaks that's about as bad or even worse[0] than regular food. Hell, sometimes the same companies makes both regular and "organic" stuff.
But I get your point. Now I would like to have some "smart" devices, though, so beyond your label for self-contained devices I kindly ask for a label for devices that stay on local network.
--
[0] - industrial pesticides are better than "pesticides" that still let you claim the "organic" label.
"no connectivity" sounds fine to express that. "unconnected" maybe.
But IMHO such devices aren't the problem. I can't think of many (any?) devices where I'd want an unconnected one and can't get it. The problem are connected devices that come with unexpected extra connections (networked camera that wants to talk to cloud service etc). Maybe "service-less" for that?
It would indicate that the device is self-contained and has no connectivity.