Two differences I can think of, either side the debate: 1) The impersonation can be carried out in real-time by the criminal themselves. No need to employ anyo

Two differences I can think of, either side the debate: 1) The impersonation can be carried out in real-time by the criminal themselves. No need to employ anyone else. (No trail leading to them.) 2) Pro impersonators aren't common in society. They are limited as an asset and not duplicatable. So, using one cannot spread like wildfire and overwhelm our awareness that voice impersonation is something of a common risk. Maybe the second could hold the first in check. I think disruptive tech like this & similar advances in visuals come with a societal impact that lessens potentials for realising the bigger fears. But people just love fears.