airtape
A practical playbook for recruiters and hiring managers who want to record online interviews properly: lawful basis, candidate experience, retention, and a tool stack that does not punish the candidate.
If you want to record job interviews online and stay on the right side of GDPR, the work is mostly process, not technology. Recording is useful: it lets a second interviewer review a candidate without sitting through every call, reduces note-taking burden during the conversation, and gives a more honest picture than memory does a week later when the shortlist comes together.
It also creates real obligations. The candidate is a data subject, the recording is personal data, and your hiring process is the controller. The good news is that a clean workflow takes care of those obligations without making the candidate feel surveilled.
GDPR requires a lawful basis for processing personal data. For interview recordings, the most defensible options are usually explicit consent or legitimate interest, depending on how core the recording is to your hiring process and how you mitigate impact on the candidate.
The most respectful and the most compliant version of this overlap almost entirely: tell candidates exactly what is happening, before the interview, in writing.
Include one short paragraph explaining that the interview will be recorded, the purpose (typically: enabling other interviewers and the hiring manager to review), who has access, and how long it will be retained.
The invitation should link to the privacy notice that covers recruitment processing. Make sure that notice actually describes recording, the lawful basis you use, and candidate rights.
When the candidate joins, briefly confirm that you will start recording and ask if they have any questions about it. Press record only after that confirmation.
If a candidate prefers not to be recorded, have a fallback: a non-recorded interview with structured notes. The candidate should not feel that refusing the recording costs them the role.
Some interview recording tools require the candidate to install software, create an account, or grant intrusive permissions on their machine. That is a poor experience and it makes consent feel coerced. A browser-based recorder removes that friction.
Airtape fits this shape: browser-based, no install, no candidate account, separate tracks, instant transcription. Hosting and infrastructure details should always be validated against your own DPA and data protection requirements before adoption.
Policies are easy to write and hard to operate. The retention and deletion part is where most teams quietly fail. A simple, boring system you actually run beats an elaborate one you do not.
Compliance is the floor. The ceiling is whether the candidate walks away thinking your company is thoughtful or surveillance-y. The difference is mostly in tone and clarity.
Generally yes, provided you have a documented lawful basis, you inform the candidate transparently in advance, you retain the recording only for as long as necessary, and you respect candidate rights of access and erasure. Confirm specifics with your DPO or counsel.
Not always. Consent is one lawful basis, but legitimate interest can also apply with strong transparency and safeguards. The key is to pick a basis, document it, and explain it clearly to the candidate. Avoid bundling consent so tightly with applying that refusal feels impossible.
Only as long as you actually need it. Common windows are 90 to 180 days after the hiring decision, extended only for active disputes. Document your retention period in your candidate privacy notice and stick to it.
Have a fallback ready. Interview them without recording and rely on structured notes. The candidate must be able to refuse without harming their chances; otherwise any consent obtained is not valid.
Yes, and it usually improves candidate experience because there is nothing to install. Verify the vendor's data processing agreement and hosting arrangements meet your GDPR obligations before adopting.