> this is simply a blatant way of getting a real name associated with their user data
Or maybe it's a way to control access to their systems in a more reasonable and auditable way, and prevent some abuse too.
Disclosure: I work in Google Cloud, not on this
Back before github and dropbox took off, anyway.
Not assuming the worst as default will only make matters worse. Even if Google has very good and honest intentions with gathering this information at this time, you have to assume the inevitability of that changing in future, either under duress of corporate existence or being compelled by larger more powerful actors.
Have I read the above 5 years ago I would have rolled my eyes at yet another privacy nut raving on the internets.
If the worst isn't part of the strategy, they should explicitly forbid themselves from doing the worst in their Terms of Service. Or at least publicly advertised in a legally enforceable manner. The fact that they don't is pretty good red flag that they either are doing it or want to leave the door open to doing it later.
I'd imagine it's more a way to make sure the remaining 2% don't just spin up a new account every time they hit a limit.
Since google admits that 98% of current users will continue to incur 0 cost this is simply a blatant way of getting a real name associated with their user data.