Do they have wi-fi?

Modern technology is great isn't it? Advances in digital technology and connectivity have opened up new worlds for individuals, businesses, communities and countries.

At the same time, I firmly believe that this same ubiquitous connectivity is responsible for much of our modern-day stresses and pressures. Put simply, we are always on.

20 years ago, when there were few mobile phones, people simply couldn't be reached when they were travelling, or on holiday, or out for dinner. Emails would not be read, let alone actioned, until the following working day, if the recipient had already gone home.

Now, with mobiles, blackberries, iphones, ipads and other time-saving, sanity-sapping devices, we are always on. And I'm really not trying to raise the gender thing here, but guys, you are by far the worst at this, yet you doth protest the most. Mobile phones are answered in restaurants, cars (obviously), planes and trains (even with the dreadful Euston to Birmingham signal). Blackberry messages are picked up and sent at all hours of night - what must their partners think of them? Do they sneak off to the bathroom to send these messages??

Anyway, my point here is that being on 24-7 can't be good for us. Where is the down-time, moment of calm in the day, R&R? How can we possibly recharge our batteries when we are always on?

One of the great bosses I had a few years ago always used to leave the first hour and a half of every day completely free. No meetings under any circumstances. He also used to like going for a walk at lunchtime. I admire this self-discipline.

I currently find myself in an organisation where, if you will allow it, you will always be on.

I know this because when my friend booked us in for a spa break this week, I said to her, "Do they have wi-fi?"

Facebook's Zuckerberg says "you have one identity"

really???

I read the article in this month's Wired with some intrigue. But I certainly had a better understanding of the interesting beliefs/values that sit behind Facebook's approach to privacy (or lack of).

Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with Facebook's much-maligned abuse, exploitation or under-hand approach to privacy (or lack of) per se. As I have said previously, those that put it all out there on facebook do not give a sh*t about privacy. You only need to look at the content and photos that they publish for their 300+ 'friends' to view. Pictures of their children, tales of their ex's flaws, wall postings to their spouses and children - who actually live under the same roof - and warnings to biatches to 'keep away from my man' etc etc. In fact the real crime here is probably one of general social breakdown and the art of conversation. But I'll save that for another post.

I was intrigued that what seems to be driving facebook's evangelism of no privacy is in fact Zuckerberg's view that we should all be transparent anyways - both our social and work personas blurred. Hmmmm. Interesting that Sheryl Sandberg, COO, did not appear to share the same view.

Now, I don't know Zuckerberg. I've read a few articles about him, and of course I've read his biog on wikipedia, so I'm sure I have the full picture. But I think he is seriously naive if he believes people only have one identity, or aspect. What I find most worrying, is that he implies that privacy, because it is not transparency, is dishonest. When did it become dishonest to avoid flaunting your sexuality in front of small children, or refrain from swearing like a trooper in front of the reverend, or save hangover breath for days when you don't have to be in the office at 8am. Hello!!! I thought that this was part of juggling the various strands of life. Why does Zuckerberg think that this is a lack of transparency, or in some way construe putting up a pretence? Isn't this what all human beings - both children, but especially adults, do, to actually function socially or otherwise? Imagine if no one ever had any social constraints, controls or restraints. Although interesting, the world would be an awful caricature of... facebook.

Ask any working mom, and she will tell you about the different aspects of her life. This does not mean that she has different identities, just that she brings the relevant skills, knowledge, humour and emotions etc, to suit the situation.

I'm all for more transparency, and I agree that people do sometimes suppress their true personalities, and therefore potential, to such an extent that they lose themselves, especially at work. But, I am a little worried that Zuckerberg's mission to correct this is somewhat misguided, and its not what people are signing up to. In a sense, Facebook could actually be accused of having more than one identity. In that it pretends to be a harmless social networking site, when actually its young founder is on a naive mission to 'out' everyone and rid the world of the evil that is privacy.