How to verify that a job applicant is a real person
An application arrives with a plausible name, a tidy résumé, a phone number and an email address. None of that proves a person stands behind it. For a remote role the honest question is no longer only "is this candidate good?" but "is this candidate who they say they are, and will the person I interview be the person who does the work?" The answer comes in stages: cheap checks on the contact details before anyone spends time on a call, a few habits in the interviews, and the formal checks at the offer. Each stage catches what the one before it cannot.
Before the interview: the contact details
A real applicant's phone and mailbox have a history. A generated identity's were made for the application, usually the same week, and that difference is checkable without contacting anyone.
Who the phone number was issued to
Every North American number sits in a block assigned to one carrier, and the assignments are public. A number from T-Mobile, Verizon or AT&T is an ordinary phone. A number from Bandwidth, Onvoy, Telnyx or another VOIP wholesaler was provisioned by API, and almost nobody's personal phone lives there. The free number lookup checks one number in a second; the VOIP check guide explains how it works and where it misreads. Google Voice numbers come from the same blocks, so a wholesaler result means look closer, not reject.
Whether anyone's name is on the line
The block record says who a number was issued to, not who holds it now. The carrier's own records go further: the current line type and, for many US numbers, a subscriber name. That name is the closest thing to proof the contact details can give. A number people have carried for years almost always has one; a number provisioned last week almost never does. A name that matches the applicant clears a suspicious-looking number, including a Google Voice one, and no name at all on an app-provisioned line is about as strong as a single signal gets. These lookups are paid, per number, through line-type APIs such as Twilio Lookup.
Whether the phone and mailbox belong to anyone else in the pile
The same number or the same Gmail inbox (after dots and plus tags are removed) on several applications under different names is one operator applying as many people. The shared phone guide has the spreadsheet steps. The address itself carries shapes too: throwaway domains, long runs of digits, handles with no trace of the name; the email red flags guide goes through each.
Whether the history adds up
For the applicants you mean to interview, spend two minutes on the public footprint. A LinkedIn profile's "About this profile" panel shows roughly when it was created; a profile from last month with a ten-year career on it is worth a question. Check that the employers on the résumé exist and that the dates and cities are consistent with each other. For engineers, a code history that predates the application helps; its absence proves nothing, since plenty of good engineers have none in public.
Whether someone answers
Schedule the first screen as a call to the number on the application, not a link sent by email. A real applicant answers their own phone, and if they miss it, the voicemail greeting usually has their name in it. A number that only ever reaches a generic greeting, or a person who asks to move every call to a meeting link, is not proof of anything, but it is information you did not have.
In the interviews
- Camera on, from the first video round. Say so in the invitation so nobody is surprised. You are not checking appearance; you are making sure there is one consistent person to remember.
- The same interviewer at the start and the end. The usual substitution is a capable stand-in for the technical round and the real hire, or someone else, later. One person who met the candidate in round one and meets them again in the final round will notice a different voice or face.
- Questions about their own résumé, not the textbook. "What broke in that migration, and who noticed first?" is easy for the person who was there and hard to answer from a script. A steady pause before every answer, or eyes that track something off-screen, is worth a follow-up question rather than a verdict.
At the offer
- A background check. In the US, a report from a background check company is a consumer report under the Fair Credit Reporting Act: you need a standalone written disclosure and the applicant's written authorization before ordering it, and a set notice process before acting on anything it finds. State and city laws can limit when you may ask about criminal history. Your provider will have the forms.
- Form I-9 on the first day. The employee completes Section 1 by their first day of work and you examine their identity and work-authorization documents within three business days of it, in person, or by live video if you use E-Verify and follow the government's alternative procedure. E-Verify itself runs only after the I-9, never to screen applicants.
- Equipment to the address on file. Ship the laptop to the address the new hire gave, in their own name. The FBI has warned about remote workers who have company laptops sent to someone else's address and operated from elsewhere; a request to ship to a friend or a forwarding service on day one deserves a direct conversation.
Which check catches what
| Check | Catches | Misses | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phone block holder | Numbers bought by API for the application | Ported numbers; Google Voice vs other VOIP | Free |
| Line type and subscriber name | New app numbers with nobody behind them; clears real Google Voice users | A real identity lent to someone else | Per number |
| Duplicates in the file | One operator applying as several people | A single fake who applied once | Free |
| Interviews | A stand-in, or nobody consistent at all | A real person who is not the right one | Your time |
| Background check, I-9 | A borrowed or invented identity | Everything before the offer; they come last because they cost the most | Per hire |
What not to do
Do not verify by accent, name, nationality or location of origin; none of them is evidence, and treating them as evidence is discrimination. Apply the same checks to everyone at the same stage, and write down why you passed on anyone you passed on. Do not confront an applicant with a guess; a wholesaler number is a reason to look, and the person may have an ordinary explanation. And do not build or share a list of people you think are fake: a list like that, shared between employers, starts to look like a consumer report, with the legal duties that come with one.
Where ApplySift fits
ApplySift does the first stage across a whole posting at once. Upload the CSV your ATS exports and every row is checked for a wholesaler or unassigned phone, phones and mailboxes shared with other rows, and the email shapes, then given a tier (Likely fraud, Review or Clear) with the reasons in words. The enhanced check adds the carrier lookup for the rows you choose, 4¢ a row: the line type today and whether a subscriber name is on file, so a real person's Google Voice number comes out Clear and an app number with no name on it goes to Likely fraud. It does not check identities, devices or résumés, and it never rejects or contacts anyone. It tells you which applicants to verify first, so the interviews go to people who exist.