To be annoyed when asked to confirm my details

[exponential]

I get annoyed when companies ask me to confirm my name and address on the phone when they mean will you tell me your name and address.

Yesterday when asked I said OK you tell me my address and I will confirm if you have it right. They were non-plussed.

It seems to me “to confirm” means to ratify or repeat an assertion ( Chambers dictionary)-surely they should tell me not me tell them.
AIBU-or just pedantic?

My 'bank' called me the other day and wanted confirmation of my first and middle name, I asked them to tell me my initials first as I was suspicious, they hung up. I would be very cautious.

2020in2020

You work from a company's point of view. You don't work on customer protection.
The measures you are talking about are effectively to protect the business.
You're not considering the occasions when it may not be you who is calling the customer.

It might be useful for your work, and for the poor people who actually ring customers, if you factor in that customers rightfully distrust unknown numbers calling them.

You haven't answered my previous question: how do you reassure the customer that it's really your company calling and not a scammer?
Because if you don't, then it's you making work difficult for those calling the customers.

If you are bored of people telling you "you call ME", think about a better system and push it through with your company. You will save your time and mine.

Orgs like the CIA manage this. They have that two-phrase thing where the agent has one half and it has to be corroborated with the matching half so both sides know the other is legit.

Why can't this sort of thing be set up?

Maybe a pp with an Very Important Job in finance could take it up with their mates on the Board or something, clearly us customer plebs can't hope to have such major influence

They have that two-phrase thing where the agent has one half and it has to be corroborated with the matching half so both sides know the other is legit
That would leave you so open to fraud especially if used over a period of time. All it would take is for you to be overheard once and someone could have complete access to your accounts.

I too work in finance but deal with customers for a short length of time for very specific queries. Therefore once I have gone through security with them I will set a password with them for the weeks we are going to be in contact. Many though still opt to go through the full security as they feel this keeps their accounts safer

Orgs like the CIA manage this. They have that two-phrase thing where the agent has one half and it has to be corroborated with the matching half so both sides know the other is legit. [] Why can't this sort of thing be set up?

KISS.

I didn't say my suggestion was perfect, but it shows there ARE other ways than just giving up personal information on request to some random who phones you up and says they're from your bank, as pp (who work for banks) seem to think is just dandy.

The amount of times I get a call from either withheld or unknown (to me) numbers and they say ‘can I ask who I’m speaking with?’ And get the response ‘well you called me, so you tell me’
Or ‘can I just check to see I’ve called the right person?’ Me ‘ok’ big pause... then ‘well, I’ll need your name..?’ Me ‘no, you asked to check. Tell me who you think you’ve called and I’ll either confirm or tell you you have the wrong number’ ‘but but but... data protection! Can’t tell you who I’m calling!’ ‘That’s fine, have a good day then, bye!’
😂😂