Names are also a way to discriminate on ethnicity, although they're less reliable: names can be changed. Discrimination occurs in all manner of ways. In many countries, more casual labour the screening is done by a face-to-face interview. Clamping down on photos on a CV is not going to do much in those cases.
In the UK it seems it's perfectly alright to have a farm owner appear on a TV news station and be completely unchallenged as she is almost boastful about how she discards applications from one EU country's workers because another EU's countries workers are better and don't complain as much.
This is prima facie the very thing that equality legislation is there to prevent -- generalizations being applied to individuals based upon something beyond their control, such as nationality of birth.
If you found a way to survey small employers in a way they felt comfortable about answering truthfully, they will have notions about many nationalities. Some will be generalizations that on average apply poorly to the individual, some will apply better. Almost all will be based on a ridiculously unrepresentative sample size that is likely heavily biased towards a particular segment of the population. This is in spite of some of the most advanced equality legislation in the world.
The tech industry has some pretty poor generalizations about the work produced by certain nationalities.
For many employers equality starts and ends with an equal opportunities monitoring form stapled to the back of an application form that the applicant is to complete for a job that they already have no chance of getting. Even getting rid of names, education, past jobs and on CVs and application forms is not going to change that.