The recording is held to the employer's instructions, kept anywhere from weeks to years, hired or not, and whether AI scores it is usually not said. Deleted can mean kept as statistics; the access reply is the instrument that answers what the policy won't.
Biometric capture with a hidden automated score. Track it.
The recording is kept to the employer's instructions, from weeks to years, and "deleted" can mean kept as statistics.
Some platforms verify identity; all capture your face and voice on camera.
Industry profile reviewed 23 August 2026. Also machine-readable via the free API.
What leaks here is your face, your voice, and a machine's judgment of you under pressure, tied to your name and the job you didn't get. A recording is not a password: it cannot be rotated, and neither can what it shows.
The employer holds the pen
Nearly every platform here processes your interview on the hiring company's instructions: the employer decides how long the recording stays and whether it goes, and more than one platform forwards deletion requests to the employer rather than acting itself. A request to the employer covers the vendor's copy, and the platform is obliged to help answer it.
The camera is visible. The scoring is not.
Half the policies in this trade say nothing about AI at all, while the same companies advertise interview scoring, summaries, and fraud detection. Silence is not absence: a recorded interview can be scored without a word of it in the policy, and the complete copy of your file is how anything derived comes to light.
Weeks for one, two years for another
Where a number is given at all, stated defaults run from eight weeks to two years after you press stop; several policies give no period, and one says indefinite. The recording of your face and voice sits on the vendor's servers that whole time, hired or not.
Deleted can mean kept as statistics
More than one platform anonymises interview data for its own analysis instead of erasing it, by a method it never describes, and counts that as deletion. What stays behind after a deletion is theirs to state, and asking for it in writing puts the answer on your record.
Kept against a claim you never made
An employer that keeps your interview after turning you down is usually holding it against a possible discrimination claim, and in the UK the window for bringing one is measured in months, not years. That is a reason to keep the file, not a reason you cannot ask: a deletion request still lands, a refusal has to say what ground is keeping it, and the ground expires with the window. Either answer goes on your record.
Worked out from the industry, not from any one company. What you actually handed over is yours to record.
Built only from what this kind of service actually collects. A dimension that the data does not support is not listed.
Face and voice are captured and analysed.
Emotion-scoring claims to read affect and confidence.
Two kinds of hold. LAW SETS IT: a statute makes them keep it. THEY SET IT: a ground the company grants itself.
They treat it as no longer being about you, though such data can sometimes be re-identified.
They can keep records to defend a live or possible legal claim.
More than one platform reserves the right to analyse interview content for its own product improvement, anonymised by its own definition. Your interview can keep working for the vendor after the hiring decision is long made.
Analysis is sold to employers; the recordings train the vendor's scoring.
Half of policies are silent on AI while the same firms sell scoring of your face, voice, and words.
There is nothing to anonymise: your recorded face and voice are biometric identifiers, and your spoken answers carry a style that language models attribute on top (Staab et al., ICLR 2024).
Fifteen demographic attributes re-identify 99.98% of Americans in a released dataset (Rocher, Hendrickx and de Montjoye, Nature Communications, 2019); date of birth, postcode, and sex alone did it for most people in the first study of the problem (Sweeney, 2000).
A face, voice, or fingerprint template identifies a person directly; there is nothing left to anonymise, and it cannot be reissued like a password.
Browser and device fingerprints were unique for 84% of visitors in the first large study (Eckersley, 2010), and sparse histories of what people viewed re-identified them against public reviews (Narayanan and Shmatikov, 2008).
THE STUDIES Estimating the success of re-identifications in incomplete datasets using generative models (Nature Communications 10, 3069, 2019)·Simple Demographics Often Identify People Uniquely (Carnegie Mellon University, Data Privacy Working Paper 3, 2000)·How Unique Is Your Web Browser? (Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium (PETS 2010), 2010)·Robust De-anonymization of Large Sparse Datasets (IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2008)
Clauses that recur across this industry, and what each one actually permits.
“to provide and improve our services”
The catch-all purpose. Analytics, profiling, personalisation, and increasingly AI training can all ride under it. When they want to do something new with your data, this sentence usually already covers it.
THE MOVE An objection draws the line: use your data to run the service, not to improve, target, or train on it.
“we do not sell your personal information”
Often technically true, and still misleading. It usually means no cash changes hands. Data can still flow to ad networks, analytics firms, and partners: on their definition, sharing is not selling.
THE MOVE Flip the do-not-sell switch where one exists. The written objection on top of it goes on your record.
“service providers, partners, and affiliates”
How data leaves the building with no name attached. Recipients are listed by what they do, never who they are. You cannot send a request to a company you cannot name, which is the point.
THE MOVE An access request can ask for the recipients by name, not just the categories. UK and EU law put that choice with you. The reply, or the silence, goes on your record.
“aggregated or de-identified information”
Stripping the name does not strip the pattern, and the pattern often still points at you. Policies grant themselves free, indefinite use of this data because in their telling it is no longer about you.
THE MOVE If a deletion comes back as 'anonymised', keep the reply. It is their claim, not a fact you can check.
“retained as long as necessary, or as required by law”
They can keep it for: legal duties, tax rules, fraud prevention, possible lawsuits, their own business reasons. None of them carries a firm end date. Deletion becomes a negotiation, not an event.
THE MOVE Which reasons apply to you, and how long each runs, is a request of its own. Their reply goes on your record.
“you grant us a licence to use your content”
A contract term, not a data setting, so a privacy request cannot undo it. The careful version ends with your account. The broad version can be passed on, never expires, and survives deletion.
THE MOVE Whether the licence ends with the account is written in their terms, not yours. Closing the account goes on your record.
“we process this data on behalf of the hiring organisation”
The platform answers to the company that interviewed you, not to you. Retention, deletion, and what the recording is used for follow the employer's instructions, which you never see.
THE MOVE The request goes to the company you applied to, and the vendor's copy rides on it. A separate request to the platform reaches whatever it holds as its own.
“we do not request special category data, but it may be incidentally present”
A camera collects what a form never asks: your face, your voice, your accent, a visible disability, religious dress. Calling it incidental changes nothing about what is now on file.
THE MOVE The complete copy includes the recording itself. What was read off it, if anything, owes you an answer in the same reply.
“we may analyse anonymised or aggregated data to improve our services”
Your interview keeps working for the platform after the process ends, stripped of your name by a method they never describe. Under their definition it is no longer your data at all.
THE MOVE An objection draws the line at analysis beyond running the interview; erasure asks for the source material to go.
Their own policy is the one that binds them. Pin it down with a request, and keep the reply. Start your record →