I'm not saying that it does. I'm not condoning or advocating the practice. I simply question the motives of someone who refuses to accept a card that says "SEE ID" because the card is 'not valid' since it is not technically signed on the back. So far, this thread has only proven my point; no one has a valid practical reason to reject such a card, so everyone discusses the advisibility, technicality and efficacy of this practice.
I've said one very valid, very practical reason to reject the card - THERE IS NOTHING TO CONNECT CARD AND ID. It also means that both the person presenting the card and the person accepting the card are breaking the T&Cs of the card and the card company aren't responsible if someone does use it illegally. So there's two rather good reasons for not putting "see ID" on your card.
Fact: Photo-ID matching as a whole is no less effective signature matching as a whole in prevention credit card fraud. Fact: Accpetance of a card that says "SEE ID" with a matching ID is no less secure than accepting a card upon signature match. Opinion: Seeing an ID and matching it to a card makes it less likely that a petty thief (pickpocket) got a hold of a card and is using it before the owner calls it in missing, what I believe to be the majority of cases of lost or stolen cards used. Will attempt to find the facts to back this up. If my opinion is true, then writing "SEE ID" on the back of a credit card would seem to be the best way to prevent the majority of credit card fraud that would happen based on in-person use of another's card.
So if the card says "J Smith", then anyone called John Smith, Jane Smith, etc etc would be able to use it - and I suspect these days that organised groups could knock up legal looking ID in a few minutes. After all how many people in Idaho would even know what Alaskan ID looks like, let alone know if it's valid or not.