The main problem with this argument IMO is that it equates oppression with the kind of unwavering ruthlessness that is the way of the machines: they will do as they are programmed - there are no exceptions (unless such exceptions are programmed in of course, which is not discussed).
This is however not the usual definition of oppression, which is normally conceived mostly as "unjust discrimination" [0] - which is really the polar opposite of such undiscriminating "decisions" by the computers. I.e. everyone is treated equally, which is an ideal under the rule of law, the alternative opens up for corruption where the wealthy (for example) in court is treated with more leniency than the poor - or vice versa.
As it stands the text can be read a veiled criticism of a "rule of law"-system backed by the state. And as such, a modern take on an age-old discussion that leaves little leeway for common ground: a leeway that allows for a little bit of this, a little bit of that which is how things tend to end up in actual life.