- while entirely possible, I doubt that's the cause. Many governments (including the US) have bemoaned the anonymous nature of the Internet for decades. Any noise in that corner is consistent with previously voiced concerns. What would change is if there's publically stated policy or laws. Patriot act implies that the current state of affairs is sufficient for three-letter agency requirements. After all, Google is not requiring stringent proof of identity.
The name policy is a liability for Google. It is an untenable policy. The policy is sporadically enforced and ultimately, trivial to game. It potentially exposes Google to additional legal and illegal activity. Bad actors will increasingly impose on Google with legal or illegal means once the perception is established that Google is actively linking personally identifying information. And it serves as a distraction from Google's technology. This issue part of the G+ story when Google really needs G+ to out-shine established competitors. Furthermore, it throws a dark shadow over Google's meta-data collection and other services outside G+. And it highlights another Google's weakness which has been customer service when the G+ story could be putting Google's strength in technology in the forefront.
The advantage to the G+ names policy is that some of the user-base can lie to themselves and tell them that everyone is "real" (for their definition of reality). Having been involved within infosec for numerous years, I understand that the emperor's new cloths can be surprisingly motivational.