couldn't you be fired for recording people without their consent?
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-co...
> Eleven states require the consent of every party to a phone call or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. (Notes: (1) Illinois' two-party consent statute was held unconstitutional in 2014; (2) Hawai'i is in general a one-party state, but requires two-party consent if the recording device is installed in a private place; (3) Massachusetts bans "secret" recordings rather than requiring explicit consent from all parties.). Although they are referred to as "two-party consent" laws, consent must be obtained from every party to a phone call or conversation if it involves more than two people. In some of these states, it might be enough if all parties to the call or conversation know that you are recording and proceed with the communication anyway, even if they do not voice explicit consent. See the State Law: Recording section of this legal guide for information on specific states' wiretapping laws.
That said, IANAL.
At the level of your personal rights, however, you have an absolute right to observe, record, copy, and display anything you are able. Personally, I feel the correct response to anyone who tells you that you cannot archive what you see and hear is laughter, followed by an explanation of their rights.
The legal question is whether text-to-speech qualifies as a "recording" when the audio itself is not stored.
If the law were as technical as you describe then VoIP calls themselves would be against the law since a person's voice is recorded, transmitted, and momentarily stored.