Pay in installments of $31.03 with
,
and
Shipping Estimate
USA
- USA
- CAN
- USA
- CAN
Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Aug 29 - Sep 3
Promo Codes Available:
For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15
Description
StarTech.com 23.8-inch 16:9 Gold Monitor Privacy Screen, Reversible Filter w/Enhanced Privacy, Screen Protector/Shield, +/- 30° View AngleProtect sensitive on screen information with a premium privacy solution designed for modern workspaces. The StarTech. com 23. 8 inch Gold Monitor Privacy Screenis a universal, reversible privacy filter intended for 23. 8 inch monitors with a 16: 9 aspect ratio. Its distinctive gold surface is more reflective than traditional black filters, creating an effective barrier against visual eavesdropping while maintaining crisp readability for the user.
Protect sensitive on-screen information with a premium privacy solution designed for modern workspaces. The StarTech.com 23.8-inch Gold Monitor Privacy Screenis a universal, reversible privacy filter intended for 23.8-inch monitors with a 16:9 aspect ratio. Its distinctive gold surface is more reflective than traditional black filters, creating an effective barrier against visual eavesdropping while maintaining crisp readability for the user. Built to fit a wide range of displays, this privacy shield blends seamlessly with office setups, conference rooms, and hot-desking environments where confidential data needs protection from side viewers. In addition to privacy, the filter doubles as a durable screen shield that guards against scratches and dust, helping to extend the life of your monitor. Whether you work in finance, healthcare, design, or any field requiring discretion, this privacy screen is designed to deliver dependable, everyday privacy without sacrificing image quality or color fidelity.
- Universal compatibility for 23.8-inch, 16:9 monitors: Designed to fit most displays that share a 23.8-inch diagonal screen size and a 16:9 aspect ratio, making it a versatile upgrade for many office setups.
- Gold privacy filter with enhanced privacy: The gold-toned surface provides stronger visual privacy by limiting viewing angles, reducing the chance that passersby can see your screen from the side while maintaining comfortable readability for the user.
- Reversible design for flexible privacy: A two-sided solution that lets you choose between privacy-focused mode and a more neutral or glare-reducing option, depending on lighting and collaboration needs in your environment.
- Screen protection and anti-scratch shield: Acts as a protective layer to guard your display from scratches, dust, and everyday wear, keeping your monitor looking pristine even in busy workspaces.
- Effortless installation with secure fit: Slim-framed, tool-free attachment that aligns easily with most screens. It stays securely in place during daily use and can be removed without leaving residue or damaging the display surface.
Technical Details of StarTech.com 23.8-inch Gold Monitor Privacy Screen
- Model/Design: StarTech.com 23.8-inch 16:9 Gold Monitor Privacy Screen
- Display compatibility: Fits 23.8-inch monitors with a 16:9 aspect ratio
- Filter material: Gold privacy film with enhanced privacy properties
- Privacy viewing angle: +/- 30 degrees
- Reversibility: Dual-sided design for flexible privacy or glare reduction
- Protection: Acts as a screen protector/shield against scratches and dust
How to install StarTech.com 23.8-inch Gold Monitor Privacy Screen
- Prepare your workspace: Power down your monitor and ensure the screen surface is clean and free of dust. Use a soft, lint-free cloth to wipe away any fingerprints or smudges.
- Align the privacy screen: Hold the privacy filter parallel to the display and position it so that the desired side faces outward. Align the edges with the bezel to ensure a clean and balanced fit.
- Attach securely: If your model uses a frame or adhesive-free mounting, gently attach the filter to the display and press along the edges to lock it in place. For models with lightweight mounting hardware, ensure all clips or tabs are firmly engaged without overtightening.
- Verify visibility and privacy: Turn on your monitor and test the viewing angle by viewing from the sides. Adjust as needed to achieve the desired privacy level. Flip to the other side if you want to switch to glare-reducing mode.
- Final checks: Confirm that the screen remains easily readable at typical working distances and that there is no unwanted distortion or edge gaps. Store the protective film or cover if provided when not in use.
Frequently asked questions
What screens are compatible with this privacy screen?
The privacy screen is designed for 23.8-inch monitors with a 16:9 aspect ratio. Its universal design makes it suitable for a wide range of displays that share these dimensions.
How does the gold privacy surface differ from traditional black privacy filters?
The gold surface is more reflective, which can enhance perceived privacy by narrowing the viewing angle and reducing the amount of light that escapes to the sides. This can help prevent side viewers from seeing content while still allowing the user to view the screen clearly.
What does the reversible feature mean for privacy?
The reversible design offers two sides or modes—one optimized for privacy and the other for glare reduction or a different viewing benefit—so you can adapt to lighting conditions and collaboration needs without swapping filters.
Is this screen easy to install and remove?
Yes. The privacy screen is designed for simple, tool-free installation and removal. It attaches securely to most displays and can be removed without leaving residue or damaging the screen surface.
Will this screen protect my monitor from scratches?
In addition to privacy, the screen acts as a protective shield, helping to guard the display against scratches, dust, and everyday wear, which can extend the life of the monitor’s surface.
Can I use this privacy screen in both small and bright office environments?
Absolutely. The gold privacy film is designed to function effectively in typical office lighting as well as brighter spaces, providing consistent privacy and reducing glare while preserving legibility for the user.
Shipping Notes
- Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
- Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
- Delivery to the USA:
- Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
- If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
- We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
- Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
- To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
- Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
4.4 ★★★★★
Based on 27 reviews
Sort
Product Reviews
★★★★★ 4
The Constitution: A Living or Static Document
Format: Hardcover
There has been a debate over the past several decades on whether the US Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted according to current mores and standards or whether it is a static document that should be interpreted using only the meaning found in the original wording of the document.
The author, in this book, makes the case that the Constitution is, in fact, a living document that should be interpreted by modern standards and by using principles of common law. There are examples given that, quite frankly, are very persuasive. For instance, if the Constitution were interpreted using original language, we would not have the freedom of speech that we now enjoy. A careful reading of the First Amendment will show that only Congress was prohibited from making laws that abridged free speech. There were no constraints on the states or on other governmental bodies.
Whether or not you agree with the author on how the Constitution should be interpreted, this book will make for some though provoking reading and interesting discussion. The book was well written, fairly easy to understand and should be read by all who are concerned about where the Supreme Court is now and where it is headed.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 23, 2010
★★★★★ 5
Clear, cogent, and illuminating
Format: Kindle
Clear, cogent, and illuminating explanation of the difference between two approaches to interpreting the Constitution: originalism and the Living Constitution
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on September 18, 2015
★★★★★ 5
Excellent!!!
Format: Kindle
A wonderfully refreshing argument for "the living constitution". Most surprisingly is that much of the argument is based in the philosophy of Edmund Burke, father of modern conservatism.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on February 22, 2017
★★★★★ 5
Five Stars
Format: Hardcover
Strauss demolishes originalism in a concise and accessible volume.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 11, 2014
★★★★★ 3
Ultimately disappointing .. but still a good read
Format: Hardcover
This book does have a few commendable features. It is written in laymen's language, you don't have to be a constitutional law scholar like David A. Strauss to comprehend the arguments. And it's short. Won't take more than a couple of hours to read. But as a critique of the "originalist" constitutional doctrine, it is hit and miss. For example, Strauss argues that originalism has three major flaws (p.18):
1) the impossibility of determining what the understanding of the founding fathers was on a particular issue.
2) the impossibility of translating an original understanding so that it addresses today's problems.
3) no answer for Thomas Jefferson's question about why we, the living, should be governed by the "dead hand" of past generations, including the founders.
Of these three, the first is the most telling, because it is indeed sometimes the case that we do not know what the founders would have thought about a particular issue, because that issue simply did not exist at the time of the enactment of the constitution or a particular amendment, or because that original meaning could be lost to history. The patent-ability of new life forms as a result of genetic engineering being a good example (but, other technological examples, like cases related to airplanes and cars, are NOT good examples, since while the founders were unaware of these technological advances, it's safe to assume they would recognize them as transportation vehicles, so their understanding of ships and horse carriages would apply to them). That's why i am what Strauss might call a "sometimes originalist" - my view is that IF there is no reasonable doubt about what the enactors of a constitutional provision would have thought about a case, then that should control the decision a court arrives at. But obviously, if the issue was unknown to the enactors, or if their views are forever lost to us due to the passage of time, then there is no "original understanding" of that particular issue, and some other method of constitutional interpretation must be relied on.
The second and third objections are far less compelling to me. The second objection is IMO a non-issue. To ask "well, we know that in 1880 the enactors of the 14th amendment did not believe its equal protection clause outlawed employment discrimination against women, but would they believe that if they were living in the year 2000, with all the economic/cultural/technological changes that have developed over those 120 years?" is an irrelevant question. It's like asking if the 1969 Congress that enacted the Clean Air Act would still enact it if that Congress were to debate the issue in 2010: it's purely speculative and ungermane, since neither statutes nor constitutional provisions have expiration dates on them.
Likewise, the 3rd objection is both shallow and disingenuous. Shallow because Jefferson clearly understood that the constitution, like laws enacted by the legislature, are subject to change by later generations, who can amend the constitution or pass new legislation to supersede what previous generations have accomplished. Disingenuous, because the invocation of Jefferson seems to be a tactical decision by Strauss, a way to tweak originalists by citing one of the very greatest of our founding fathers. Yet Jefferson can also be quoted to support an originalist view. For example, in 1801 he said:
"The Constitution on which our union rests, shall be administered by me according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States, at the time of its adoption....These explanations are preserved in the publications of the time, and are too recent in the memories of most men to admit of question." (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, quoted from a letter dated 3/27/1801).
The first part of this quote clearly indicates that Jefferson believed that constitutional provisions should be interpreted according to original understanding, not "modern, evolved" standards of meaning as David Strauss would contend. The second part speaks to the need i identified before, that of knowing within the bounds of reasonable doubt what the enactors understood a provision to mean.
Beyond all this, though, is David Strauss's contention that a "living constitution", as defined by a common-law like accretion of judicial precedent in constitutional matters that leave the original meaning of the text behind, is necessary because otherwise our constitution would become an archaic relic unable to meet the demands of a changing society, and that the formal amendment process is too slow and cumbersome. Professor Strauss correctly notes that Jefferson believed that our institutions must evolve with the development of society; however, he crucially fails to note that to Jefferson, the primary mechanism of such innovation was to be the actions of the legislature. Constitutional provisions are expounded in broad, general language not to enable future judges to interpret them in light of changing societal conditions, but to permit elected bodies, like legislatures and congress, wide latitude to address the problems of today. Legislative bodies, which directly reflect the ebbs and flows of societal change and are accountable to the people, were Jefferson's preferred vehicle of constitutional innovation, not the decisions of insulated, life-tenured court judges. On this point, unlike on many others, Jefferson was in agreement with John Marshall. As Jean Edward Smith (1996) writes "When (in McCulloch v. Maryland) Marshall spoke of the Constitution as "intended for ages to come" and of the need to adapt it "to the various crises of human affairs", he was alluding to the responsibility of Congress, not the Court. And the limits on Congress were defined by the political process, not the judiciary" (p. 445).
Thus, for example, while the enactors of the 14th amendment did not intend for it to ban employment discrimination against women, it also was not intended to prevent Congress or the state legislatures, at the time of the enactment or in the future, from enacting legislation that does protect women from employment discrimination should that type of legislation be deemed necessary or advisable. Jefferson was far more wary of "innovative" actions by judges, exemplified by his belief that "if federal judges have the final word over its meaning,
the Constitution would be a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please". Yet it is exactly this type of judicial activism that Strauss means when advocates a "living constitution".
Strauss's fundamental error is revealed on page 103 when he says that "We cannot say that the text of the constitution does not matter ... no (textual) provision of the constitution can be overruled in the way a precedent can, or disregarded the way original understandings often are". What Strauss is saying here (well, he wouldn't put it this way, but this is my view of the matter) is that when a judge wants to be activist, to impose his/her personal policy preferences on a case, it's very important that the judge somehow, through clever verbal gymnastics, no matter how convoluted, "ground" that ruling in some actual constitutional-textual language. This is very important for achieving the political purpose of maintaining respect for the court in the eyes of the public. But to me, Strauss creates a false dichotomy: The text of the constitution is ONE AND THE SAME with its "original understanding". The 'text', the actual words of the constitution, does not exist independent of the original understanding of those words, the text is merely the communicative vessel used to convey that original understanding. That's the way language works. It's a method to convey meaning. Thus, to invoke the Due Process Clause of the 5th amendment to outlaw Federal segregation laws (as the Court did in 1955) when the enactors of the 5th amendment clearly (as Strauss admits) did not intend for it to mean that, is the SAME THING as ignoring the "text" of the constitution, since the text and original understanding are one and the same.
Overall, i recommend this book. One will learn alot about constitutional history, and Professor Strauss is surely correct in that the "living constitution" view is in fact the dominant way in which the Court has gone about its business in practice, regardless of what legal theoreticians have thought.
But, don't expect to be convinced by much Professor Strauss has to say about why this is a good thing.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 18, 2010
recommand products
WATER HOSE BIRD NEST WATER FOUNTAIN FEATURE
175.00
ZiiPa Fotana Carry Cover To Suit ZiiPa Pizza Oven – Terracotta
109.95
DESIRING COUNTRY WELL WATER FOUNTAIN FEATURE
110.00
Twin Lotus Flowers Lamp - Orange - Mosaic Stained Glass - Leadlight
174.97
PIZZA OVEN - ZiiPa Piana Gas Fired Pizza Oven with Rotating Stone – Slate Ardoise
424.50