> If it's a mobile phone, it cannot possible be secure
That treats "secure" as a binary condition where something is either 100% secure, or it's just "insecure." It's somewhat like dividing Supreme Court judgments into those that are 9-0 and those that aren't, treating 8-1 decisions the same as 5-4. It's not wrong, it just throws out a lot of useful information.
"Secure" is an analog value for data just like "secure" is an analog value for physical objects. If you have a precious object, locking it up and hiring a security guard to protect it makes it more secure than leaving it on the front seat of your unlocked car. It's not very useful, when discussing various types of safe deposit box locks, to say "a safe deposit box can't possibly be secure since a bank robber can come and steal it." Things can be made more and more secure, but even Fort Knox has vulnerabilities.
That treats "secure" as a binary condition where something is either 100% secure, or it's just "insecure." It's somewhat like dividing Supreme Court judgments into those that are 9-0 and those that aren't, treating 8-1 decisions the same as 5-4. It's not wrong, it just throws out a lot of useful information.
"Secure" is an analog value for data just like "secure" is an analog value for physical objects. If you have a precious object, locking it up and hiring a security guard to protect it makes it more secure than leaving it on the front seat of your unlocked car. It's not very useful, when discussing various types of safe deposit box locks, to say "a safe deposit box can't possibly be secure since a bank robber can come and steal it." Things can be made more and more secure, but even Fort Knox has vulnerabilities.