Why do we need to give our operating systems our name? Think about it. We give them a username and a password. Are those not sufficient? The good old:
sudo adduser username
sudo passwd usernameWhy on earth do we need to associate a name with our account? You are just dumbing down the operating system for everyone. And for what? To make things a little more 'user friendly'?
Sure, it may sound nice to have a name associated with your account. But it's completely superfluous. The username is sufficient. Put your name in the username, first_last, whatever. But do not force everyone to do it.
When you force everyone to enter their name you are just prioritizing user tracking over user safety. And this is not hypothetical. We have already seen OS companies incorporate ads. Windows is, of course, famous for doing this. But many companies do this. Has MacOS ever warned you that you're running out of iCloud space? And for the low, low cost of $0.99 a month they will give you 50GB more. Many other OSes have experimented with it. Ubuntu had ads at one point but chose to remove them.
Sure, a name is not a unique identifier. But advertisers don't rely on just one piece of information to track you. We've already seen this in browser fingerprinting. Advertisers can just look up what apps you have installed, what fonts you have installed, what browser you're using, what language you use, and before you know it, they have a complete marketing profile of you. Names are the same way. In fact they are significantly worse unless you have one of those extremely common names.
And names are not even required from a technical standpoint. Why do you need a name? So your OS can say 'Hi so-and-so'? Even digital services don't need a name unless they need to verify your identity. Which makes you wonder why online services that don't need your identity even ask for this information. This is privileged information and we're just supposed to give it out like candy? It has to stop.
An email address is used to send you emails. A phone number is used to call you. What is a name for? It is a data point that is used to verify personhood. It exists not to make the software work, but to make the user indexable. When a platform asks for your name, they aren't trying to improve your user experience, they are trying to tie your behaviour to a specific, legal entity that can be cross-referenced with credit bureaus, marketing databases, and government registries. A shadow profile.
Even if the service had good intentions that database is still a honeypot for malicious actors. If a database containing only email addresses is leaked, the damage is localized. However, when those emails are paired with legal names, the risk of sophisticated phishing, identity theft, and physical doxing increases exponentially.
This is why names are a security debt. Companies collect names they don't need, fail to secure them, and users pay the price with identity theft when that data is sold on the dark web.
So what to do instead? We should encourage all services to collect only the information they need. This is called the principle of least privilege. You should only grant services the absolute minimum amount of data possible. This would drastically reduce the surface area available for identity thieves.
For most services this means moving to a username, email, and password setup. Or maybe not even an email. Just username or password. This is how it's done on Unix systems. True Unix systems.
We should have never moved away from the true Unix way. Because what now? People just collect so much data that they don't even need. From a data hygiene point of view, it's disgusting.
"Add a name to your account. It'll be helpful for… something." And then it becomes "Add a phone number for… reasons." And now it's "Enter your address because we told you to." This 'identity creep' must stop.
And, sure, you can enter fake information now. But when will services start to tighten the screws and start to demand that your name must match your legal name? We've already seen this on some social media platforms. You can already be banned if your name doesn't match. Next they will be asking for your passport or other government ID 'preemptively'. For a better experience, they say. Give me a break.
What these apps are creating is a global surveillance state. Once your account is tied to a legal name, anonymous speech becomes impossible. Every search, every post, every interaction will become permanently linked to your real identity. One that you cannot change.
"I have nothing to hide", you say. But what about people with legitimate security concerns? Journalists, activists, and whistleblowers. When platforms mandate real names, they effectively silence anyone for whom being identifiable carries a risk of state retaliation or physical harm.
A name requirement is a luxury for the privileged. For everyone else, it is a barrier to entry that demands they choose between digital participation and personal safety.
If a service can deliver its value without knowing who you are in the physical world, it has no moral or technical right to ask. It is time to treat the name field for what it truly is: an unnecessary security risk and a tool for mass surveillance.