If it was me, I'd store large quantities of bitcoin offline in multiple wallets (which the guy with 25,000 of them apparently did not bother to do), and then only as much as I need when I'm certain my machine is clean.
I don't know about you, but I keep my money in multiple locations - some easy to get to (my actual wallet), some in a safe (locked in my house), and some in my bank account (obviously protected by the institution itself).
That way if someone mugs me in the street, they only get what's in my wallet at the time. If someone breaks into my house (and somehow figures out my safe combination - perhaps because they somehow saw me use it through a window or something), they still don't get what's in my savings account.
Anyone can do the same with bitcoin, they just tend to be lazy because it's "convenient" to just keep it all in one place, on their trusty, secure computer.
It's important to note that the bitcoin software is not necessarily a single program - anyone can create their own "secure" bitcoin program if they want (it's open source)... so this problem is likely to solve itself as people actually care enough to do it.
There's no central authority involved here, so trying to say what they "should do" is sort of pointless, as no one person, or group of people is necessarily responsible for how bitcoin is stored or managed.
We're talking about a file on your hard drive here... it doesn't matter if you password protect the file - once malware is in place, you just throw a keylogger on to watch everything the user types.
You can always encrypt the wallet file, store it offline, or send your bitcoin to a website that "stores" them for you (mybitcoin.com for example)... but that doesn't stop the fact that stored bitcoin can be taken from your machine if you don't protect it somehow.
That's my understanding as well - that the bitcoin block is untraceable once it leaves a person's wallet - but you can track who is sending/receiving them.
That does little good if 25,000 people receive a bitcoin from this thief - it doesn't mean that those 25,000 people become thieves, just as a store clerk receiving a stolen $20 bill in return for groceries doesn't make them a thief.
I ceased to own a cell phone in 2005, initially for financial reasons, but ultimately I found it quite uplifting to rid myself of an always-on "gadget".
The suggestion that it can cause cancer only solidified my stance on cell phone (dis)use.
My wife also neglected to renew her cell phone plan, and instead got a "pay-as-you-go" phone. This tends to reduce how much she uses the phone, but still keeps it in the car for emergencies, or whenever we go out of town. I've borrowed her phone once or twice when going on business trips, but I hate having to use it.
Because the primary point of checkpoints are to prevent people from drinking and driving in the first place - if they know they're likely to encounter one, they are probably less likely to drink and drive.
Sometimes people just need a reminder that what they're about to do is not only dangerous, but also illegal, and they're gonna go to jail if they get caught.
The people who are gonna do it anyway probably won't care.