From which I think is another exnclleet overview, see+Frances Haugen (Google Profiles product manager): In that discussion, Frances felt safe to share this At the same time, please remember Google+ is committed to helping people connect with people they know and to feel safe sharing and communicating. We believe using real names and real profile pictures is the best way to create that kind of environment. with people they know ?Frances if I want to connect with someone I know on some on-line service, guess what? I ask them what ID they are using there. I know it's them because I know them and they told me.If someone that I know tells me that the ID used by a specific John Smith of interest is Attila The Hun, then I can feel safer in that working rear endumption than I would be in trawling through 10 s of thousands of John Smiths none of whom might be the one of interest.What if I find a John Smith that appears to be the right one. Google+ is encouraging us to believe that he is the right one because it's on Google+. He has their implicit stamp of approval. BUT Google has never actually verified this. He's allowed to be there because his name doesn't look funny . That's is the reality of validation when you have a few hundred million accounts signing up on-line.Unless . Google take a name, check it doesn't look funny and then run the name and IPs (real word locations) ever used by that account against databases like electoral rolls, credit headers, etc.I think that RE Vernon (above) is on the right track.I want to believe that this unbelievable mess is down to evil rather than terminal stupidity.An evil 50-ton gorilla can be met and dealt with.A 50-ton gorilla that is mostly cute and helpful but prone to breaking things is too much of a PITA.YOU WILL CONFORM !Google want to become the TSA of the Net.If you don't tick all the safe' checkboxes, you can't fly.If you appear in the least bit non-vanilla to some algorithm or low-paid drone, you can't fly.