[onion2k]

The statement "servers are more vulnerable [than phones]" doesn't mean "every server is more vulnerable than every phone". It's a more general point; trusting any given server is a greater risk than trusting any given phone. The fact that you can harden a server against attacks doesn't mean that your data being stored in the cloud is safer because, on the whole, people don't do much more than the minimum. Phone manufacturers do do more than the minimum.

[xaduha]

Who said anything about "the cloud"?

I've edited previous comment.

[onion2k]

"the cloud" and "on a server" are the same thing.

[xaduha]

Nope. And in any case that's one area in which "security through obscurity" can be useful. Presumably you have your phone on your person, but the fact that you have a server somewhere has to be determined.

And if we are being completely paranoid, then you can have some form of Dead man's switch or "self-destruct" option. You have a right to make a phone call, right?

[ChristianBundy]

You have to be trolling, especially given your Hacker News bio:

> Currently working on a server in Chrome that you can connect to using node.js to make a web page do stuff (and no, that isn't back to front).

?!?!

I have no words.

[onion2k]

Not at all. That particular project uses https://github.com/GoogleChrome/chrome-app-samples/tree/mast... in Chome. It is a server, and it runs in Chrome. I've made an extension that works as an API so that external clients can connect to it to access the DOM and change parts of a webpage.

It'd be stupid, but there's no reason why you couldn't use a system like that, running in Chrome, listening on an IP address, to do pretty much anything a "real" server does. The user wouldn't know. It's just a server, or "the cloud".