>but in most cases that's not going to be believed by a jury.

Is there are least some argument of reasonability? I have an old Runescape account I would love to be able to get back into, but I don't even remember the email it was tied to, much less the password. I was a kid back then so even the card that paid for membership was my parents. Is there some expectation that the prosecutor has to show the account was accessed in the last X years, or is this effectively a backdoor to keep someone in prison indefinitely?

There's no doublespeak there. To regulate just means to make regular. If they make the reprehensible the regular way of doing things then they've still done the job they're nominally supposed to do. They could say all investigations have broad sweeping powers going forward and they would still be regulating investigatory powers.

We want regulation to be for the benefit of all so we attach an emotional meaning to it but nothing about the word says it has to be beneficial.

What happens in the case of plausibly-deniable keys? Say someone has an encrypted drive with a hidden volume, one key decrypts decoy files and one decrypts the true files. If the person gives up the key to the decoy files, is the onus on the prosecution to prove additional keys exist or on the defence to prove they don't?

> In theory once you got out you could be re-served with the notice and face another 2-5 years. Rinse and repeat.

Is there no concept of double-jeopardy in UK jurisprudence?

The UK always surprises with how close their reality is to V for Vendetta.