When one invades the privacy of another it causes a reaction of betrayal in the eyes of the person whose privacy is being invaded. Privacy is one of the most personal things on this planet and any invasion of that strips away a part of that person which they thought was theirs alone. The first decision for discovering the employee's actions on the computer states that they will not implement that surveillance program, and will try a less effective means of determining the source of the problem. The pros to this measure of action are that there will be no invasion of the privacy by the management on what person things an employee does on his or her specifically assigned computer. It will also cause no dispute in the workplace because nothing will change in the surveillance of the employee's personal computers and the dealings done with them. The major con however, to this suggestion, is that it is a less effective mean of determining the source of the problem. If no one is watching over the actions of each specific employee it will be almost impossible to ever find the specific employee's that are using their assigned computers for non-work related measures. This procedure follows the Kantian view on privacy, which is that your actions are not being broadcasted to someone other than yourself and it is you alone that is deciding what you want to make public. This procedure also follows the utilitarian view on privacy, which is that invasion of privacy will do more harm than good.
The second option of what the company could do in order to end the problem of its employee's using the computer for games, internet, etc., is that they could implement the computer monitoring program without informing its employees of this action. The pros to this action is that with the employees unaware that they are being watched they will act as normal, and the workers that are using the internet and playing games will be caught with "their hand in the cookie jar".
