[DeadBabyOrgasm]

I'd imagine this only applies if you keep the recording. What about hearing impaired people who might use this for accessibility purposes? One would only need to keep it for the following fractions of a second it takes to turn it into text. At that point, it turns into the legal equivalent of notes you write while on a phone call.

That said, IANAL.

[pc86]

It applies if you record. Whether you keep it or for what reasons you record are irrelevant.

The legal question is whether text-to-speech qualifies as a "recording" when the audio itself is not stored.

[Spivak]

My guess would be no, as speech-to-text is no different than having someone transcribe the conversation.

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.

[jsprogrammer]

These laws are likely invalid. Communications networks already operate on a "record and transmit" basis. As you pointed out, the real question posed by these laws is "when must a recording be destroyed"?

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.