Say what?

Editor’s note: The following is a discussion of the capture of data and not jurisprudence evidence governing the admissibility of audio recordings in a court of law.

What’s the difference between a voice recording and a voice print? A voice recording is an audio file capturing someone speaking. It’s no different from a voicemail, a job-site video or a recorded customer call. A voice print is something else entirely. It’s a mathematical representation of the unique characteristics of a person’s voice: the pitch, tone, cadence, resonance and speech patterns are processed by software to identify or authenticate an individual.

Voice prints are treated as biometric identifiers—methods of recognizing a person using unique traits—under several U.S. laws, such as the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The distinction between voice recordings and voice prints matters because the capture of biometric identifiers is often legally protected while ordinary recordings generally are not.

If you use customer service management software and operate nationally or in states with biometric laws, this is a compliance risk hiding in plain sight.

Capability matters

Many roofing contractors use customer service management and call-center software with voice analytics capabilities. The use of artificial intelligence-powered meeting transcription tools that link users together are increasingly becoming standard practice. Safety training platforms with speaker identification, job-site documentation videos that analyze audio, voice-activated software and authentication systems are tools many companies have adopted for operational efficiency—but some may do more than record audio.

When voice data is analyzed to identify or authenticate a speaker, the software may be generating a voice print. As a result, roofing companies that use such systems could be subject to biometric privacy obligations without realizing the voice data is being collected in a legally protected form.

In a 2024 California court hearing Delgado v. Meta, the court ruled capability, not actual use, determines whether a company is collecting biometric identifiers. If your system could identify someone from his or her voice, you may be subject to biometric privacy laws.

The legal landscape

The U.S. does not have a unified federal biometric privacy law regarding voice prints. Roofing contractors must navigate a patchwork of state laws, but litigation is expanding rapidly.

This year, multiple class action lawsuits have been filed against major tech companies including Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft and Nvidia alleging unauthorized voice print extraction from publicly available recordings. As of August, Walmart may be added to the list of class action suits after a group of Illinois customers filed a suit against the company for creating voice prints via Walmart’s customer service line.

This may signal growing legal concern that voice data should be treated as biometric data whenever AI systems process it.

Recordings become voice prints

This is where the risk becomes alarming. Modern AI systems can create a usable voice print, or even a full voice clone, from mere seconds of audio. Commodity voice-cloning tools can replicate a voice with only 4 to 5 seconds of sample audio, according to Hiya, a voice security and caller ID platform.

Research done by McAfee in 2024 showed it only took three seconds to produce a voice clone with an 85% voice match to the original. McAfee researchers further showed, using freely available AI voice cloning tools from the internet, they could achieve a 95% voice match using a small number of audio files. And cybercriminals can clone a voice from a brief voicemail, TikTok clip or Zoom meeting snippet.

For roofing professionals, this means a short job-site video posted on social media, a voicemail left for a supplier, a recorded customer call or even a brief conversation captured during training may provide enough audio for someone to generate a voice print or clone of someone’s voice.

The cybersecurity threat

Voice prints aren’t just a privacy concern; they also can create significant cybersecurity risks. Advances in AI have made voice cloning increasingly accessible, allowing cybercriminals to generate convincing replicas of a person’s voice from only a short audio sample. These cloned voices have been used to impersonate executives, authorize fraudulent financial transactions, manipulate employees into disclosing sensitive information, carry out so-called “grandparent scams” and even circumvent voice-based authentication systems.

In one widely reported case in Forbes, a scammer allegedly used a cloned voice in a $35 million bank fraud scheme in 2020, tricking a branch manager into believing he was receiving a call from the director of his parent company.

For roofing contractors, the implications are significant. A scammer could impersonate a company owner or chief financial officer to approve a large purchase, direct a project manager to share customer data, request an urgent payment to a new vendor or authorize material charges with a supplier. These scenarios are no longer hypothetical. As voice-cloning technology becomes more sophisticated and widely available, businesses are increasingly being targeted with voice-based social engineering attacks.

Risk management steps

Following are six ways roofing contractors can mitigate their risk:

1. Audit your voice data processing. Begin by conducting a thorough audit of every system, platform and workflow that captures or processes voice data. This includes customer service recordings, AI-powered transcription tools, job-site videos, safety training modules and any software that uses voice interaction or voice authentication. If a tool can analyze voice characteristics in a way that could identify an individual, even if you never intended to use it that way, you should treat the resulting data as biometric information.

2. Implement notice and consent. If your company operates in states with biometric privacy laws or if your employees or customers reside in those states, consider implementing clear notice-and-consent procedures. This means informing individuals in writing that their voice data may be collected, analyzed or stored and obtain their consent before doing so. This often includes publishing a retention and destruction policy that explains how long voice data will be kept and when it will be deleted. These requirements apply to employees, customers, subcontractors and anyone whose voice may be captured by your systems. Even if your company is headquartered elsewhere, compliance is often required if you interact with individuals in regulated states.

Voice recordings are everywhere in modern roofing operations from customer calls to job-site documentation

3. Minimize voice data collection. Adopt a “collect only what you need” approach to voice data. If a recording is not essential for documentation, training or customer service, avoid capturing it. When recordings are necessary, store them only as long as required for operational or legal purposes. Avoid retaining raw audio files when a text transcript will suffice and turn off any optional features in your software that perform voice analytics or speaker identification. Minimizing collection reduces your exposure and simplifies compliance with biometric privacy laws.

4. Strengthen authentication systems. Voice authentication should not be used as the sole or last check and balance for sensitive systems, financial approvals or access to company data. Modern AI tools can easily clone a voice from audio, making voice-based security unreliable. Replace or add to voice authentication with stronger alternatives such as passkeys, multifactor authentication, device-based verification or out-of-band confirmation through text or email. Treat voice as an interaction method, not an identity verification method. This shift can protect your business from impersonation attacks and reduce the likelihood of fraudulent access.

Click here for a more in-depth review of various state privacy laws regarding unauthorized voice cloning.

5. Train employees regarding voice cloning risks. Your cybersecurity training should now include information about voice cloning and voice-based fraud. Employees need to understand scammers can replicate a voice from a short voicemail, a social media video or even a brief job-site clip. Train your teams to verify unexpected requests, especially those involving financial transactions, password resets or sensitive information. Encourage employees to be cautious about posting videos or audio online and to treat any unusual or urgent voice communication with skepticism. Awareness is one of the strongest defenses against social engineering attacks.

6. Evaluate vendor compliance. Finally, evaluate whether your software vendors comply with biometric privacy laws. Ask questions such as: Do you create or store voice prints? Do you use voice data to train AI models? Are you compliant with state biometric laws? Do you have a retention and destruction policy? Vendors should be able to answer these questions clearly and confidently. If they cannot, or if their policies are vague, consider switching to providers with stronger privacy and compliance practices.

The bottom line

Voice recordings are everywhere in modern roofing operations from customer calls to job-site documentation. When AI systems process those recordings, they can become voice prints, triggering biometric privacy laws and creating cybersecurity vulnerabilities.

Roofing contractors must treat voice data as a sensitive asset. The legal landscape is shifting quickly, and attackers are already exploiting voice cloning at a large scale. Understanding the difference between a voice recording and a voice print isn’t just a tech issue—it’s an operational and legal risk that organizations should manage.

For more information about this topic, visit nrca.net for resources or contact me at aanglin@nrca.net.

---