Biometric Retention: A Minimization Playbook for Hiring

If you run Support/CS for a hiring platform or an internal TA operations desk, you've seen the pattern: a candidate disputes verification, asks for deletion, and demands proof that it happened. Meanwhile, recruiters want speed, and Security wants certainty. The operational failure mode isn't "we did something malicious." It's "we stored more than we needed, for longer than we can justify, and we can't prove we deleted it." That's how a small ticket becomes an executive escalation.

Stand up a retention policy for document and biometric processing that answers four questions with receipts: what was collected, why it was necessary, how long it is retained, and what remains after deletion (audit-grade, privacy-preserving evidence).

Minimization is the fastest path to fewer escalations. Every extra artifact you store becomes a future ticket: access requests, deletion demands, breach notifications, and "who viewed my data?" questions. There's also a fraud angle. Checkr reports that 31% of hiring managers say they've interviewed a candidate who later turned out to be using a false identity (manager survey, 2025). That implies identity risk is common enough that teams will add verification quickly—sometimes without retention discipline. It does not prove your org has the same prevalence, nor does it quantify biometric-specific risk; treat it as directional pressure on the hiring system, not a forecast.

Before you change retention, you need a single operating model. Otherwise Support becomes the switchboard between tools that disagree. Recommended ownership model (works in practice): Recruiting Ops owns the hiring workflow and candidate communications; Security owns biometric policy requirements and access controls; Support/CS owns execution health (SLA, macros, escalation routing) and candidate-facing responses; Hiring Managers should not own any retention decisions. Automation vs. manual: deletion, retention timers, and access logging must be automated. Manual review should be limited to exceptions (active dispute, fraud investigation, legal hold) and should require case IDs and approvals. Sources of truth: the ATS is the system of record for candidate status; the verification service is the system of record for verification outcomes; a centralized audit log (or Evidence Pack) is the system of record for "what happened" without keeping raw biometrics.

A defensible minimization stance separates three layers: The Support win: if a candidate requests deletion, you can delete the raw artifacts quickly while retaining an Evidence Pack that proves the workflow was followed (and that deletion occurred).

Below is an example policy you can hand to Security/Legal and also wire into your automation. It's intentionally opinionated: short default retention, strict exceptions, and deletion receipts so Support can close tickets with evidence.

• Keeping raw biometric media indefinitely "for investigations" (it increases exposure and invites misuse; investigations should use scoped holds with approvals). - Letting recruiters upload ID screenshots into ATS notes/attachments (it spreads sensitive data into systems with broad access and weak lifecycle controls). - Handling disputes in email with ad hoc file sharing (it creates uncontrolled copies and breaks chain-of-custody when you need defensible Evidence Packs).

For Support, the goal is a consistent, low-friction path that avoids improvisation. Build three ticket routes:

IntegrityLens AI ("Verify Candidates. Screen Instantly. Hire With Confidence.") is built for teams that want minimization and retention enforced inside the hiring workflow—not bolted on across disconnected tools. IntegrityLens combines a full ATS with advanced biometric identity verification, fraud detection, AI screening interviews, and technical assessments in one secure platform. TA leaders and Recruiting Ops get a faster funnel; CISOs get policy-grade controls; Support gets fewer "where is the data?" escalations. - ATS workflow as the system of record for candidate state and retention triggers - Risk-Tiered Verification with Evidence Packs to defend decisions without retaining raw biometrics - Zero-Retention Biometrics options to reduce storage exposure - 24/7 AI interviews and 40+ language coding assessments without tool sprawl - SOC 2 Type II / ISO 27001-certified infrastructure posture, with 256-bit AES encryption baseline

Treat retention like a workflow control: tie it to ATS states and automate it end-to-end. Keep audit-grade evidence (decisions, hashes, timestamps, access logs) while minimizing or eliminating raw biometric storage. Make exceptions expensive: time-bounded holds, approvals, and case-based access—so exceptions don't become your default. Give Support a deletion receipt and a single, consistent candidate explanation. That's how you protect cycle time and reputation simultaneously.