[horizon_breaker]

I can see value in it for the individual in the sense of developing and maintaining an online presence that parallels your real world presence. You might have 10 followers, but if someone is interested in who you are -- such as a peer, colleague, potential employer or what have you -- they can find out. Don't want something attached to that persona? The web still offers plenty of avenues for anonymity, I think.

[yeukhon]

The issue is that it is possible the user is telling the truth and now then Google is deciding whether you are or not by asking you to supply documentation. As Google is moving forward with integrating G+ with other services, it seems a burden for existing user and future user to prove their identity.

Yes, there is a value. I often find people I read on technical paper or newspaper or from tweet and I can find out their contact information by Googling their names. That's great, but I argue that they don't need to "police" users. They shouldn't "police" users. The user isn't doing transaction. It's just a Google plus profile. Plenty of people stay "anonymous" with a pen name. Take Bitcoin's "inventor". Should anyone use that name the second time, will Google just say "no, prove to me you are this guy?" People who wish to be searched will always enter their real name. In fact, my wild guess is most Google users always enter real name when they first sign up for Gmail and therefore, Google doesn't need to worry about people provoding fake name. I know Google wants to provide better social and identity graph, but again, there is a limit to how much Google should "police" this real name policy. I can call myself "Jesus Christ" and my guess is Google will not accept that. I have a friend named "Mee You"....

Disclaimer: I am not a guy who hate Google or have anything against Google+ and I personally am okay with Google showing me on search result, but on the case of real name policy I am a nay-sayer.