I am neather a reviewer of journal nor a professor at the university who has published various papers; but I as the question seemed so interesting, I searched over the net and found some references in which your question is exactly answered. Moreover, our own logic can also judge about the ethics of such question. As it is written in this webpage:
Confidentiality. Material under review should not be shared or discussed with anyone outside the review process unless necessary and approved by the editor. [...] Material submitted for peer-review is a privileged communication that should be treated in confidence, taking care to guard the author’s identity and work. Reviewers should not retain copies of submitted manuscripts and should not use the knowledge of their content for any purpose unrelated to the peer review process.
Although it is expected that the editor and reviewers will have access to the material submitted, authors have a reasonable expectation that the review process will remain strictly confidential. If a reviewer is unsure about the policies for enlisting the help of others in the review process, he or she should ask the editor.
As it is written in the text, papers under review should never be shared or discussed with anyone unless approved by the editor. When we go to the logic of this, it is obvious that the reviewer should never discuss the paper with anyone. That is because the paper, the methodology, the outputs and the review process should be confidential. This is because it may happen that when the reviewer discusses the paper with a person who is not responsible with the review process, the chance that the innovative idea of the author be stolen and even submitted to another journal. Moreover, when the reviewer has access to the author by any mean and has the chance to ask his questions or ask the author to make some vague parts more clear; there is no need to talk about the paper with anybody else. Even, if there some minor questions exist for the reviewer, he can ask the editor or discuss with him about the topic.
In this link, the reviewer is also informed about the things he should pay attention to after reviewing a paper.
[...] Because most reviewers prefer to read hard copies rather than electronic text, the reviewer will probably have a paper copy of the manuscript. This should be destroyed immediately in a way that ensures confidentiality. The reviewer should keep a copy of the review itself until she/he is certain that the review has been received by the journal office and that the editor has no questions. This review should be kept safe and confidential until it can be destroyed (the reviewer will not need it; if the journal sends a revised manuscript for re-review, it will also send copies of the initial review).
When it goes to after review process, the text says that the reviewer even should destroy any hard copies of the manuscript after he finishes the review process and mentions that in the re-review process, journal will send him copies of the initial review too.
By reading this, we understand that the reviewer has not only the right to talk about the paper to a third person who is not responsible for the review of the paper, but also he has to destroy anything that may conflict the right of the author for being the review process confidential. In the next page of that document we read:
[...] Even after the paper is published, information on the review process should remain confidential. The reviewer should not reveal the identities of reviewers to the authors. This is especially important when there were differences of opinion between reviewers or when contentious issues
were raised during the review process. Some authors remain angry about events that occurred during a review even after the paper is published.
So the reviewer is also responsible for other reviewers of the paper as the high levels of angriness may still exist because of the review process.
If a reviewer anticipates being in a situation where the paper will be discussed, the reviewer should read the final published version of the paper.
The point the review process should always be confidential is that much important that the reviewer even should pay attention to the discussions he has and should never talk about the content of the manuscripts. He is only allowed to talk and discuss about the published paper's content.