Arcadia Security

Arcadisecurity.com is a website of the “forensic” company, which was created by Steve “Lightspeed” Jones as a part of conspiracy with John Steele and Prenda Law to gather “evidence” of unauthorized access to Steve Jones’s pornography site and facilitate subsequent blackmail. See this page for the documents and links related to this scheme.

This bogus company was created and incorporated in Arizona on 9/30/2011.

The Arcadia Security software THIEF v2.0 is merely a set of query tools for organizing web server logs according to Steve Jones’s declaration (Exhibit C). Of course, this software is not certified by any authority, and, not surprisingly, the high false positives rate has resulted in dozens of innocents being targeted for extortion.

In April we published the first post about the lawsuit filed in St. Clair county of Illinois and pointed to its numerous problems, including the obvious conflict of interest:

Furthermore, guess who owns, markets and likely commissioned the creation of the forensic software? Yup, Steve Jones (www.arcadiasecurity.com). So a more accurate statement of paragraph 14 would be “Plaintiff’s principal, Steve Jones, retained Steve Jones to use Steve Jones’s forensic software to identify…”. No reports, investigations or testimony would be admissible in an honest court because they would be found to have been issued or given by a “biased expert” or one who has a financial interest in the outcome of the lawsuit.

Soon after the publication, Steve Jones changed the arcadiarsecuruty.com domain name registration, removing his name and address and substituting them with a protection service. Also, the site itself has disappeared from the Web (correction: disappeared from the particular URL — nothing disappears from the Web). Currently arcadiasecurity.com redirects to:

  • Facebook.com if you type “arcadiasecurity.com” in the URL bar;
  • A search output page for the search phrase “gay love” — only if the referrer page is fightcopyrighttrolls.com: try it (NSFW). You can look at this page’s source and verify that the link was not manipulated by me. Astonishing immaturity!

In order to assist investigators (some kind of investigation is inevitable) and defense attorneys, I preserved the screenshots of the site (Google cache version, but I also have the original, which lists a different email address).

 

…and the original domain name registration:

 

I plan to update this page with more facts about Arcadia Security: its role in the Lightspeed Conspiracy and its “mysterious” disappearance. Suggestions are appreciated.

Update 1

Thanks Raul for reminding: here is a thread on the GFY forum (where adult webmasters hang out — NSFW). Look how Steve Jones embarrassed himself by showing to his peers that his “software” is a hoax. In short, Lightspeed posted a list of URLs that allegedly deep-link to his precious member-only area. This list included all kinds of search engines, URL shorterners, general-purpose forums etc., i.e. the false positive rate displayed was astonishing. Forum members recognized the fraud and called Steve out. A straightforward question was posted:

I’m simply asking, what’s the point. A grep of any website logs could generate the same kind of list. I’m guessing the difference is that you’ve pieced it together from multiple sources. What I don’t understand is what’s so special ? You’re obviously trying to push some new security product you’ve come up but what’s so special about it ?

Not surprisingly, Steve Jones couldn’t give any coherent answer.

It would be funny if not for the fact that this piece of crap, which some have audacity to call “forensic software,” is used to target hundreds of innocents in a frivolous lawsuit that still lingers in the St. Clair court only because the judge the crooks have found is hopelessly corrupt.

Comments
  1. Raul says:

    At around the same time Jones was trying to bury his connection to Arcadia Security, he was doing likewise with lightspeedphotography.com. This move was likely done on the advice of counsel (reputation injuries?) as this site is just creepy and makes it quite clear that if you wish to become a “barely legal” Lightspeed model you must look like a child IMHO.

  2. anon says:

    Arizona Corporation Commission

    ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION

    PUB OF ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION-ARIZONA BUSINESS GAZETTE

    ARCADIA DATA SECURITY CONSULTANTS, LLC

    http://starpas.azcc.gov/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=wsbroker1/corp-detail.p?name-id=L17113486

  3. Raul says:

    This is a rehash of sorts but investigators and defense attorneys might be interested in Steve Jones’ post of 4-27-12 @ 11:48 PM and the entire thread for that matter as his xbiz industry cohorts make fun of the accuracy and effectiveness of THIEF v2.0 http://m.gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1066323&page=1

    To Jones: Abra-cadabra!

    • Anonymous says:

      My favorite response within 1 day of his post: “Go away. Password trading has not been a issue for any paysite that knows what they are doing for 10 years +”

      Just goes to show that not only is this BS because he is the owner of his “forensics” company, but also that the current state of tech is much better than anything he was using, so he wasn’t properly mitigating damages by flat out preventing unauthorized access, but instead probably inviting people in just to cultivate IP addresses for a defendant (phone-tree) list.

    • Anonymous says:

      It scares me to wonder how crap-tastic THIEF v1.0 was if v2.0 is this bad

      • Anonymous says:

        I doubt there ever was a v1.0. Steve probably thought it would seem more advanced and credible to just name it 2.0.

        • Anonymous says:

          I’m hoping that all this will be fished out and HEAVILY scrutinized by AT&T if its councel chooses to depose Jones/Arcadia (I can’t see why they wouldn’t) in the SDIL case that was removed from LeChien’s court in St Clair County. I suppose they can now do that given that they are named defendants in this lawsuit and facing CFAA accusations. Lightspeed brought forth the original CFAA accusations in part based on evidence “collected/analyzed” by THIEF 2.0, so it’s version history, code base, true cost to “develop”, true cost to run, ALL the usernames/passwords monitored (and if they belonged to paying members and if so who they are), how many different IP addresses accessed each and every “compromised” password, how long was each “compromised” password allowed to remain active after “hacking attempts” were initially recorded etc., etc., etc.should now be fair game during questioning. I’m obviously a non-lawyer, and these are some of the key questions that simply come to my mind just on this one aspect of the lawsuit. I’m wondering what else AT&T’s councel will come up with.

        • Anonymous says:

          Yup, since Lightspeed filed suit against the two firms naming them and serving them, the two ISPs are entitled to depose Jones, examine his computers, basically do whatever they need to mount a defense against this. Jones won’t like it when AT&T and Comcast serve him with oral depo subpoenas and subpoenas for his computers and other documents deemed material to the case. It is very likely that an expert will be allowed to examine “THIEF v2.0″ since the POS program is material to this case…well, it’s entire case. I’d pay a lot of money to get ahold of the video of Jones’ oral deposition…it’d be my entertainment for months.

          As far as trial goes, the judge will eventually set a trial date after every issue is argued and ruled on (what to allow, what to chuck, what to modify). It’ll get to discovery, then there’ll be arguments heard over what to allow, etc. It should go to trial, eventually…theoretically. That’s if Lightspeed doesn’t file for bankruptcy because of the legal fees and court costs he incurs fighting these two companies.

  4. Anonymous says:

    i would LOVE to be able to see those depositions, unfortunately it will probably never get that far as the motions will roll in for a while before initial discovery is ever sought. and any sane federal judge will probably support at&t and concast’s motions

  5. [...] lawyers’ controlling interest in the plaintiff.  Also of note in the CFAA cases is the use of questionable forensics to identify the target of the lawsuits, the same questionable forensics that judges have begun to [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s