Want to know how much website downtime costs, and the impact it can have on your business?
Find out everything you need to know in our new uptime monitoring whitepaper 2021
Self destructing messages are seemingly becoming all the rage at the moment – SnapChat with it’s self-destructing pics; Wickr with its self-destructing SMS, videos and PDFs and Efemr with its self-destructing tweets – to name just a few recent arrivals. And now email. Telecoms giant AT&T has had a patent published recently which paves the way for emails which have a short life and then self-destruct.
The patent explains a system whereby the sender can set rules on how the email can be viewed – for instance can it be forwarded on? If so, to whom? The email sender can also set a date and time after which the email becomes unreadable. And that all important self-destruct means you can remotely destroy a message you’ve sent. From a security point of view this is far preferable to the current alternative of recalling an email – an exercise which often fails even if the person you’ve sent the email to hasn’t even yet read the email.
AT&T’s email system won’t work with all email. The person you’re sending the email to would also have to have the right AT&T software installed as well.
The system is unlikely to be adopted widely for day-to-day sending of personal emails, but in business where there is a need to have full control over sensitive data, having full control over where emails are sent (and being notified when emails are treated outside rules) is hugely important.
However as ever there’s an Achilles heel to this product. A good old fashioned screen-grab would still work. With this in mind perhaps the danger is that AT&T’s system could give businesses a false sense of security.
James Barnes, StatusCake.com
James Barnes
Share this
More from StatusCake
Alerting Is a Socio-Technical System
3 min read In the previous posts, we’ve looked at how alert noise emerges from design decisions, why notification lists fail to create accountability, and why alerts only work when they’re designed around a clear outcome. Taken together, these ideas point to a broader conclusion. That alerting is not just a technical system, it’s a socio-technical one. Alerting
James Barnes
February 25, 2026
Designing Alerts for Action
3 min read In the first two posts of this series, we explored how alert noise emerges from design decisions, and why notification lists fail to create accountability when responsibility is unclear. There’s a deeper issue underneath both of those problems. Many alerting systems are designed without being clear about the outcome they’re meant to produce. When teams
James Barnes
February 18, 2026
A Notification List Is Not a Team
3 min read In the previous post, we looked at how alert noise is rarely accidental. It’s usually the result of sensible decisions layered over time, until responsibility becomes diffuse and response slows. One of the most persistent assumptions behind this pattern is simple. If enough people are notified, someone will take responsibility. After more than fourteen years
James Barnes
February 11, 2026
Alert Noise Isn’t an Accident — It’s a Design Decision
3 min read In a previous post, The Incident Checklist: Reducing Cognitive Load When It Matters Most, we explored how incidents stop being purely technical problems and become human ones. These are moments where decision-making under pressure and cognitive load matter more than perfect root cause analysis. When systems don’t support people clearly in those moments, teams compensate.
James Barnes
February 4, 2026
The Incident Checklist: Reducing Cognitive Load When It Matters Most
4 min read In the previous post, we looked at what happens after detection; when incidents stop being purely technical problems and become human ones, with cognitive load as the real constraint. This post assumes that context. The question here is simpler and more practical. What actually helps teams think clearly and act well once things are already
James Barnes
January 28, 2026
When Things Go Wrong, Systems Should Help Humans — Not Fight Them
3 min read In the previous post, we explored how AI accelerates delivery and compresses the time between change and user impact. As velocity increases, knowing that something has gone wrong before users do becomes a critical capability. But detection is only the beginning. Once alerts fire and dashboards light up, humans still have to interpret what’s happening,
James Barnes
January 21, 2026