Proposed lead: Michele Shuster and Iliana Peters.
Why it matters: The FCC’s August 2024 document proposed AI-specific disclosures; a proposal must not be presented as an effective rule merely because it appears in a regulator’s publication. Separately, Illinois’s biometric statute expressly includes voiceprints within its definition of biometric identifiers. (docs.fcc.gov)
Question to put to the expert:
How should a US business separate disclosure of an AI agent, permission to record or transcribe, and any use of a voiceprint to identify the caller?
A strong answer should cover:
- Current obligations for the actual jurisdictions and workflow.
- Distinct analysis of AI identity, recording, transcription and biometric processing.
- What happens before a notice is delivered or permission obtained.
- How refusal is handled without misleading the caller.
- Whether data is retained, shared or reused, and for which purposes.
Desk recommendation: Use a clear, truthful AI introduction and a usable route to assistance. Treat that as a proposed trust policy, not a substitute for jurisdiction-specific legal analysis.
Evidence to request: Approved scripts, a processing inventory and tests showing that the deployed behaviour matches the notice.
Follow-up: Does the opening message accurately describe every system that receives the audio?
Expert quote: [Reserved for an approved interview quotation.]