rlange - 3:06 pm on Aug 30, 2011 (gmt 0)
It's been shown that your search history alone can be enough to uniquely identify you.
I'm curious about this claim. Can you source it? I suspect that it's not the search history alone that's enough. The IP address of the computer/network that the search originated from, cross-referencing search history with statements made by the subject elsewhere, etc...
Either way, that wouldn't be "name alone".
And, really, if search history alone could uniquely identify someone, why are the folks complaining about that and the Google+'s real name policy even on social networks? You can't tell me that posting on a social network can't also uniquely identify a person if search history can.
Someone with my name alone would absolutely be able to pin down exactly who I am, where I live, and thanks to Google streetview, what's in my garage.
You either have a fairly unique name, or are well-known enough that your name is commonly associated with you, specifically. If you can provide other possibilities without giving up any personal information, I'd be interested in reading them.
In fact, simply knowing my main site would divulge this information.
As would knowing either of my personal sites; they're both registered in my name, with my address and phone number. But that's also not "name alone".