Yahoo reporter Kevin Sites spends his time chronicling the people of the web, with his latest article looking at lifecasters.

These folks broadcast every moment of every day via webcam — whether they be walking, talking, working or just vegging out. Justin Kan, for instance, has his camera mounted on a hat. He livestreams everything via a WiFi link to the laptop in his backpack (just don’t confuse him with someone who makes plaster casts of the body).

He has collected a group of lifecasters at his site, Justin.tv. One of the stars is Justine Ezarik, who, according to Sites:

has model good looks and easy cyber savvyness that attracts both technophiles and casual users alike… [she] pulls off the tech-heavy setup with style, wearing a green sundress and camera mounted to a floppy Greek fisherman’s cap which, despite the dangling cables, still allows her to appear more woman than Borg.

Calm down, man. I guess it’s easy to illustrate an article with a pretty lady; even though Justin set the site in motion the Yahoo blurb and pics focus on Justine.

I can’t imagine why one would want to sacrifice their privacy for the sake of a website. I don’t like giving out personal information on this blog in written form; I could never allow the world to watch as I wandered about.
Sure, there’s the revenue and career potential. It could be great for advertising, and this in turn could create employment opportunities for the lifecaster. But is it worth it? Are they giving away too much of themselves for the off-chance of (even modest) fame or fortune? That is something only the lifecasters can answer.

Although I despise reality television, I found myself actively watching some people on Justin.tv. Sarah, for example, was at a meeting of podcasters while at the same time chatting with her viewers. Now, I can’t say I’d still be watching if she was just walking around the place, but nonetheless she had me watching her feed. Was it the novelty? Was it the subject matter? I know not for sure.

by